- wt os alist * sa geet hae EE ire et vine Hai HOHE ME SV RE TD it Oecd WT oP As elie 
Qala getty + - may ee 
Canon ameinansry tine erry Speaks yet 
oe rE aarp ena epee prea ni ne : 


ema ete eT 
Spotted oe 


= tet e 
. 





ee 


Library of Che Theological Seminary 


PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 


CP: 


PRESENTED BY | 
Mrs. Huston Dixon 


BS2344 
MG6I3 
1884 

9 





eR) Ny 





Fe 


3 
is 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 


httos://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticO9meye 





CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


Ob bo) 
VP PRIMES 
ey 






HAND-BOOK { _ MAY 243 





Ah gas 
TO THE sty gen 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


BY if 
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER, 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
G. H. VENABLES. 


WITH A PREFACE, TRANSLATION OF REFERENCES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY 
NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 


HENRY E. JACOBS, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE EVANGELICAL 
LUTHERAN CHURCH AT PHILADELPHIA, AND LATE PROFESSOR OF THE 
GREEK LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, PENNSYLVANIA 
COLLEGE, GETTYSBURG, PA, 


NEW YORK: 
Lue & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 


10 AND 12 Dry STREET. 


1884. 





- } 


Arind a 

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, 
By FUNK & WAGNALLS, ~ : 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D 


‘ 


‘ 
~ 





PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


‘‘Tue Epistle to the Galatiansis my epistle. I have betrothed myself 
to it. It is my wife.’? These words of Luther express most forcibly 
the relation of the first epistle treated in this volume to the great strug- 
gles whereby Protestant Christianity came into being as the revivification 
of the pure gospel taught by St. Paul. The doctrine of justification 
by faith alone without works, the articulus vel stantes vel cadentis ecclesiae, 
is its great theme, which is unfolded with matchless skill and defended 
with intensest ardor against the various perversions so abundant in mod- 
ern Christianity, that had already manifested themselves in apostolic days. 
Luther’s own commentary of 1519, of which John Bunyan said: ‘I 
do prefer this book of Martin Luther upon the. Galatians, excepting the 
Holy Bible, before all books that I have ever seen, as most fit fora 
wounded conscience,’’ owes all its power to the high degree with which 
Luther has caught the spirit of Paul, and applies his argument, with the 
same earnestness to the relations of a later time. It should be a mat- 
ter of special gratitude, that, however fierce the battle waged over some 
of the other epistles of Paul, the authenticity of this epistle, which per- 
tains to the very centre of our faith, is all but universally conceded, only 
one writer (Bruno Baur), and that one not of very high repute, having ven- 
tured to question it, and that, too, on assumptions that can be instantly 
answered. The entire theory of salvation by faith and works, which 
modern Pelagianism would introduce into Protestantism, is at once met 
in unmistakable words, as well as, also, the suggestion that original 
Christianity was legalistic until St. Paul introduced the new element of 
evangelical freedom, since this epistle asserts so emphaticaliy the har- 
mony between the apostles. 

The epistle to the Ephesians, belonging to a later period, when the 
apostle was forcibly restrained from engaging in the active prosecution 
of his life work, admits us into some of the great thoughts that engaged 
his meditations. While bearing the true Pauline type, and constantly 
urging the same great phase of 7 vistian doctrine, with his characteristic 
ardor, in the depths into which it penetrates, and the constant connection 
made between practical themes and the highest mysteries of faith, it ap- 


iv PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


proaches above the other epistles of St. Paul the modes of thought and 
reasoning found in St. John. Its long and involved sentences recall 
the Epistle to the Romans, and remind us how inadequate the earthly 
vessels to contain the abundance of divine revelation committed to 
them. Its entire theme is found in ch. 1. 20-—23—viz., that Christ 
is the centre and goal of all things to His church. From this 
standpoint the development is so thorough, and extends over so vast a 
compass, that in weighing the words of the epistle we are brought into 
the closest contact with the most profound mysteries connected with al-— 
most every article of revelation. The full discussion of the more impor- 
tant terms employed in this epistle would, if systematically arranged, 
form almost a complete body of doctrine. 

We doubt whether in any of his commentaries the peculiar excellences 
of Meyer as an expositor display themselves with better effect than in 
this volume. His simplicity, general clearness, thorough acquaintance 
with everything pertaining to the text of the Scriptures, astonishing in- 
dustry in the study, collection, and condensation of the labor of all 
important writers of all ages, languages, and confessions on the topics 
treated, characteristic candor in expressing his doubts concerning difli- 
culties that confronted him, and in even criticising and correcting his 
own statements in former editions, are nowhere more apparent. However 
mistaken we may at times regard his judgment, we must ever hold in 
high esteem his work, as a handbook for scholars, that in its sphere is 
without a rival. Traces of the rationalistic opinions with which he 
started, but from which, as years of study followed, he was gradually 
delivered, are to be found in his comments on these epistles. Such is, 
for example, the low view which he takes of inspiration, and the conse- 
quent undervaluing of the trustworthiness of the Book of Acts, leading to 
avery ready solution, on his part, of seeming contradictions, by deciding 
that St. Luke was, of course, incorrect. In several passages the subordi- 
nation of the Son to the Father is maintained. Christological mysteries 
find a too ready explanation by the introduction of conceptions cireum- 
scribing our Lord with local limitations, even in the hidden glory in 
which He has entered. Man’s natural estate is denied to be one in 
which He is actually beneath God’s anger. By birth he is not a child 
of wrath, but becomes such by the development of innate principles of 
evil, in opposition to the moral will inclining to what is good, wherewith 
he is also endowed. ‘This result, however, inevitably follows in every 
one ‘‘ who lives long enough to be able tosin.’’? Man’s powers are only 
impaired, not dead with respect to spiritual things. It would be very 
unjust, however, to at once apply to our author the terms by which the 
advocates of such errors are ordinarily designated in the history of doc- 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vv 


trines and heresies. They are not developed in Meyer with any consis- 
tency. He seems often to recoil from the conclusions to which his 
premises lead, while the entire method and line of argument pursued 
show how the subtile and pervasive poison of earlier life is gradually 
being expelled by the ever closer contact of the author with the great 
thoughts of eternity. 

The work of the American editor has been, first, to make such changes 
in the Edinburgh transiation as seemed to be required by the English 
idiom. Not many passages were found where an emendation was 
deemed necessary. A second task was to transfer to the footnotes most 
of such references as were unessential to the sense contained in the text. 
In this way we think that the commentary has been made much more 
readable. Where references have been retained in the text, there has 
generally been some reason for it. Thirdly, the great body of quotations: 
from foreign languages have been translated. Exceptions have occurred, 
as on p. 464, Note 1, and p. 468, Note 6, where the force of the quota- 
tion is found in the very words employed, or their order, rather than 
in the thought conveyed. Several passages have been allowed to stand 
without a translation for euphemistic reasons. Fourthly, the text of the 
translation has been compared with the revised Meyer, and all changes 
made by the editors noted. The original intention was toembody them 
all in the notes. This, however, was soon seen to be impossible in the 
compass of the twenty-eight pages allowed us. Dr. Friedrich Sieffert, 
of Erlangen, who has edited the volume on Galatians, as the Sixth Edi- 
tion of Meyer, Gottingen, 1880, has so thoroughly wrought over the mate- 
rial in Meyer’s own last edition, with so much scholarly independence, 
and so many omissions, additions, and arguments taking exception to 
Meyer, that the result may almost be regarded an entirely new commen- 
tary prepared on the basis of Meyer. On the contrary, Dr. W. Schmidt, 
of Leipzig, in the Fifth Edition of the Commentary on Ephesians, 
Gottingen, 1878, has confined himself almost entirely to the work of 
an editor, and made only a very few changes. It has been our aim, 
accordingly, to include in our notes only the more important variations 
from Meyer in these later editions, and to these to add such other notes, 
selected and original, as we thought might serve the purposes of the stu- 
dents into whose hands this volume would fall. In many of these notes 
we have had in view the indication of what we believed to be important 
errors in our revered author. Fifthly, additions have been made to the 
critical apparatus prefaced to each chapter, mostly from the revised 
German Meyer above mentioned. These we did not deem it necessary 
in all cases to indicate, the effort being simply to preserve intact all the 
comments. The references to Winer’s New Testament Grammar are 


vl PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


to the Seventh German Edition; and as Prof. Thayer’s American 
edition indicates the paging of this edition on the margin, the references 
to the Edinburgh edition in the translation we have revised were erased. 

Special acknowledgments are due Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brook- 
lyn, N. Y., whose scholarly attainments we have long known, and who 
has exercised the same careful supervision over this volume as it passed 
through the press that he has given the other volumes of the series. 

We can only regret that our portion of work had to be performed 
amidst the distraction of numerous other engagements, and without 
either time or space for such thorough editing as would fulfil our ideal. 
Every hour spent on it has been one of mingled pleasure and profit. 


Henry E. Jacoss. 
PuHrImApDELpuHtA, Oclober 15th, 1884. 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 





Some account of the circumstances in which this translation has been 
undertaken, of the plan adopted in preparing it, and of the abbrevia- 
tions used throughout, will be found prefixed to the Commentary on the 
Epistle to the Romans, which also contains a Preface specially written 
by Dr. Meyer for the English edition of his work. 

It is unnecessary here to repeat the explanations there given except in 
so far as they concern the course which I have followed in presenting to 
the English reader Dr. Meyer’s work without subtraction or addition. 
In reproducing so great a masterpiece of exegesis, I have not thought it 
proper to omit any part of its discussions or of its references—however 
little some of these may appear likely to be of interest or use to English 
scholars—because an author such as Dr. Meyer is entitled to expect that 
his work shall not be tampered with, and I have not felt myself at 
liberty to assume that the judgment of others as to the expediency of any 
omission would coincide with my own. Nor have I deemed it neces- 
sary to append any notes of dissent from, or of warning against, the views 
of Dr. Meyer, even where these are decidedly at variance with opinions 
which I hold. Strong representations were made to me that it was de- 
sirable to annex to certain passages notes designed to counteract their 
effects ; but it is obvious that, if I had adopted this course in some 
instances, I should have been held to accept or approve the author’s 
views in other cases, where I had not inserted any such caveat. The 
book is intended for, and can in fact only be used with advantage by, 
the professional scholar. Its general exegetical excellence far outweighs 
its occasional doctrinal defects; and in issuing it without note or com- 
ment, I take for granted that the reader will use it, as he ought, with 
discrimination. The English commentaries of Bishop Ellicott, Dr. 
Lightfoot, and Dr. Eadie serve admirably from different points of view— 
philological, historical, doctrinal—to supplement and, when necessary, 
to correct it; as does also the American edition of the Commentary 
in Lange’s Bibelwerk, translated and largely augmented under the super- 
intendence of Dr. Schaff. 

The translation of the present volume has been executed with care by 


Vill PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 


Mr. Venables, and remains in substance his work ; but, as I have revised 
it throughout and carried it through the press, it is only due to him that 
I should share the responsibility of the form in which it appears. — In 
translating a work of this nature, the value of which mainly consists in 
the precision and subtlety of its exegesis, it is essential that there should 
be a close and careful reproduction of the form of the original ; but, in 
looking over the sheets, I find not a few instances in which the desire to 
secure this fidelity has led to an undue retention of German idiom. 
This, I trust, may be less apparent in the volumes that follow. 

In such a work it is difficult, even with great care, to avoid the occur- 
rence of misprints, several of which have been observed by Mr. Venables 
and myself in glancing over the sheets. Minor errors, such as the ocea- 
sional misplacing of accents, it has not been thought necessary formally 
to correct. We have taken the opportunity of correcting in the transla- 
tion various misprints found in the original. The commentator referred 
to in the text as ‘‘ Ambrose’’ (from his work on the Pauline Epistles 
being frequently printed with the works of that Father) ought to have 
been designated, as in the critical notes, ‘‘ Ambrosiaster,’’ and is usually 
identified with Hilary the Deacon. 

I subjoin a note of the exegetical literature of the Epistle, which may 
be found useful. 

W. PD 


Guascow CottEecE, May, 1873. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 





[For commentaries embracing the whole New Testament, see Preface to 
the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; for those which deal with 
the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see Preface to the Commentary on 
the Epistle to the Romans. The following list includes only those which con- 
cern the Epistle to the Galatians in particular, or in which that Epistle holds 
the first place on the title-page. Works mainly of a popular or practical 
character have not in general been included, since, however valuable they may 
be on their own account, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical 
character of the present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are gen- 
erally noticed by Meyer in loc. The reader will find a very valuable notice of 
the Patristic commentaries given by Dr. Lightfoot, 6th ed., p. 227 sqq.] 


Akerstoor (Theodorus), Feformed minister in Holland: de Sendbrief van 
Paullus an de Galaten, 4to, Leyd. 1695 ; translated into German by 


Brussken. . 49, Bremen, 1699. 
Aurivitiius (Olaus): Animadversiones exegeticae et dogmatico-practicae in 
Epistolam 8. Pauliad Galatas. 40, Halae, 1702. 
Bacex (Henry T. J.): St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, the text revised and 
illustrated by a commentary. 8°, Lond. 1857. 
Bartus (Bartholomius), Professor of Theology at Greifswald : Commentarii in 
Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Gryphisw. 1613. 


BauMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob), Professor of Theology at Halle: Auslegung der 
Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Philipp., Coloss., Philem., und 


Thessal. (Mit. Beytragen von J. S. Semler). 49, Halle, 1767. 
Berutervs (Matthius): Epistola Pauli ad Galatas, paraphrasi et controversia- 
rum explicatione illustrata. 8°, Halae Sax. 1617. 
BoreGer (Elias Annes), Professor of Greek and History at Leyden : Interpreta- 
tio Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 8°, Leyd. 1807. 
Boston (Thomas), minister of Ettrick : A Paraphrase upon the Epistle of Paul 
to the Galatians [ Works, vol. vi.]. 12°, Lond. 1853. 


BreiTHavupr (Joachim Justus), Professor of Theology at Halle : Observationum 
ex Commentario Lutheri in Epistolam ad Galatas exercitationes 10 ; 
in his ‘‘ Miscellanea.” 

Brentz (Johann), Provost at Stuttgard : Explicatio Epistolae ad Galatas. 1558. 

Brown (John), D.D., Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presby- 
terian Church, Edinburgh : An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to 
the Galatians. 8°, Edin. 1853. 

BUGENHAGEN (Johann), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Adnotationes in 
Epistolas ad Gal., Eph., Philipp., Coloss., Thess., Timoth., Tit., Pbi- 
lem., et Hebraeos. 8°, Basil. [1525] 1527. 


Carey (Sir Stafford), M.A.: The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians, 
with a paraphrase and introduction. 12°, Lond. 1867. 
Carpzov (Johann Benedict), Professor of Theology and Greek at Helmstidt : 
Brief an die Galater tibersetzt. 8°, Helmstiidt, 1794. 


5.4 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


CHANDLER (Samuel), minister in London : A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epis- 


tles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, . . . together with a 
critical and practical commentary on the two Epistles of St. Paul to 
the Thessalonians. 49, Lond. 1777. 
Cuemnirz (Christian), Professor of Theology at Jena: Collegium theologicum 
super Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Jenae, 1656. 
CuytrarEus [or Kocnuare] (David), Professsor of Theology at Rostock : Enar- 
ratio in Epistolam ad Galatas. 8°, Francof. 1569. 


Cxiaupius Taurinensis, bishop of Turin, called also Altissiodorensis or Autissi- 
odorensis : Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas [in Magn. Bibl. 

Vet. Patr. ix.]. 
Coccrsus [or Kocu] (Johann), Professor of Theology at Leyden : Commentarius 
in Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1665. 
Creu (Johann), Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli 
ad Galatas ex praelectionibus J. Crellii conscriptus a Jon. Schlichting. 
8°, Racov. 1628. 


Favre (John), D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis to United 
Presbyterian Church, Glasgow : A Commentary on the Greek text of 
the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. 8°, Edin. 1869. 
Exuicorr (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: St. Paul’s 
Epistle to the Galatians ; with a critical and grammatical commen- 
tary, and a revised translation. 

8vo, Lond. 1854. 4th edition corrected, 1867. 

Esmarcu (Heinrich Peter Christian) : Brief an die Giilater tibersetzt. 
8°, Flensb. 1784. 


Frrcuson (James), minister of Kilwinning, Ayrshire: A brief Exposition of 
the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. 8%, Lond. 1659. 

Frarr (Johann Friedrich von), Professor of Thelogy at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen 
iiber den Brief an die Galater und Epheser, herausgegeben von Ch. F. 
Kling. 8°, Tibing, 1828. 

FrirzscHe (Karl Friedrich August), Professor of Theology at Rostock : Com- 
mentarius de nonnullis Epistolae ad Galatas locis. 3 partes. 4°, Ros- 
toch. 1833-4 [and in Fritzschiorum Opuscula. | 


GryNaEvs (Johann Jakob), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg : Analysis Epis- 
tolae ad Galatas. 49 Basil. 1583. 

Gwynne (G. J.) : Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 
8°, Dubl. 1863. 


HaLpANE (James Alexander), Edinburgh : An Exposition of the Epistle to the 


Galatians. 12°, Lond. 1848. 
Henster (Christian Gotthilf), Professor of Theology at Kiel: Der Brief an die 
Galater tibersetzt mit Anmerkungen. 8°, Leip. 1805. 
Hermann (Johann Gottfried Jakob), Professor of Poetry at Leipzig : De Pauli 
Epistolae ad Galatas tribus primis capitibus. 8°, Lips. 1832. 


HrGENFELD (Adolf), Professor of Theology at Jena: Der Galaterbrief tibersetzt, 
in seinen geschichtlichen Beziehungen untersucht und erklirt. 
8°, Leip. 1852. 
Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Professor of Theology at Erlangen : 
Die Heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht. 
If. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Galater. 
8°, Nérdlingen, 1863 ; 2te veriinderte Auflage, 1872. 
Housten (Carl), Teacher in Gymnasium at Rostock : Inhalt und Gedankengang 
des Briefes an die Galater, 4to, Rostock 1859; also, Zum Evangelium 
des Paulus und Petrus. 8°, Rostock, 1868. 


Jarno (Georg Friedrich). Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli Brief 
an die Galater nach seinem inneren Gedankengange erliutert. 
8°, Hildesheim 1856. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. X1 


Kravse (Friedrich August Wilhelm), Private tutor at Vienna : Der Brief an die 
Galater tibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet. 8°, Frankf. 1788. 
Kromayer (Hieronymus), Professor of Theology at Leipzig : Commentarius in 


Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Lips. 1670, 
Kunap (Andreas), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Disputationes in 
Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Witteb. 1658. 


Licutroor (Joseph Barber), D.D., Professor of Divinity at Cambridge: St. 
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A revised text, with introduction, 
notes, and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1865. 6th edition, 1880. 
Locks (John), the philosopher : A Paraphrase and notes on the Epistles to Ga- 
latians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians. 
49 Lond. 1733. 
Lusnineton (Thomas), M.A., Rector of Burnham-Westgate, Norfolk : A Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [said to be chiefly translated 
from Crell]. fol., Lond. 1650. 
Lurer (Martin): In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius (brevior), 4to, 
Lips. 1519 ; ab auctore recognitus, 1523. In Epist. P. ad Gal. Com- 
mentarius (major) ex praelectionibus D. M. Lutheri collectus ...a 
Luthero recognitus et castigatus, 8vo, Viteb. 1535 ; jam denuo diligen- 
ter recognitus, 8vo, Viteb. 1538. Often reprinted ; translated into 
English in 1575, and often re-issued. 
Lyser [or LrysEr] (Polycarp), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg : Analysis 
Epistolae ad Galatas. 4° Witteb. 1586. 


Marraras (G. W.), Co-rector of Gymnasium at Cassel : Der Galaterbrief griech- 
isch und deutsch, nebst einer Erklirung seiner schwierigen Stellen. 
8°, Cassel, 1865. 
Marrures (Konrad Stephan), Professor of Theology at Greifswald : Erklirung 
des Briefes Pauli an die Galater. 8°, Greifswald, 1833. 
Mayer (Ferdinand Gregorius), Professor of Greek at Vienna: Der Brief Pauli 
an die Galater und der 2 Brief an die Thessalonicher iibersetzt mit 
Anmerkungen. 8°, Wien, 1788. 
Micuaruis (Johann David), Professor of Philosophy at Gottingen : Paraphrase 
und Anmerkungen tiber die Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., 
Col., Thessal., Tim., Tit., Philem. 4°, Bremen und Gdotting. 1750 ; 
2te vermehrte Auflage, 1769. 
Moxnprennawer (Johann Heinrich Daniel), pastor at Hamburg: Brief an die 
Galater iibersetzt. 8°, Hamb. 1773. 
Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), Professor of Theology at Leipzig : 
Acroases in Epistolas Paulinas ad Galatas et Ephesios. 
8°, Leip. 1795. 
Muscunus [or Mrussirn] (Wolfgang), Professor of Theology at Berne: In 
Kpistolas Apostoli Pauli ad Galatas et Ephesios commentarii. 
fol., Basil, (1561) 1569. 


Pareus [or WAENGLER] (David), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg: In di- 
vinam S. Pauli ad Galatas Epistolam commentarius. 
49, Heidelb. 1613. 
Pauuus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg : Des 
Apostel Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater und Rémerchristen, wort- 
getreu iibersetzt mit erliuternden Zwischensitzen, einem Uberblick 
des Lehrinhalts und Bemerkungen tiber schwere Stellen. 
8°, Heidelb. 1831. 
PerEINS (William), minister at Cambridge : A commentarie or exposition upon 
the five first chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians . . . Continued 
with a supplement upon the sixt chapter by Rodolfe Cudworth, B. D. 
[ Works, vol. ii. ]. 2°, Lond. 1609. 
Prime (John), Fellow of New College, Oxford: Exposition and observations 
upon St. Paul to the Galatians. 8°, Oxf. 1587. 


Retramayr (Franz Xaver), R. C. Professor. of Theology at Munich: Com- 
mentar zum Briefe an die Galater. 8°, Miinchen, 1865. 


xii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 


Riccattoun (Robert), minister at Hobkirk: Notes and Observations on the 


Hpistle to the Galatians [Works, 1i1. ]. 8°, Edin. 1771. 
Rottockx (Robert), Principal of University of Edinburgh : Analysis logica in 
Epistolam ad Galatas. 8°, Lond. 1602. 
Riickert (Leopold Immanuel), Professor of Theology at Jena: Commentar 
tiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater. 8°, Leip. 1833. 


Sanpay (W.), Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham. The Epistle to the Gala- 
tians with a Commentary.. (Handy Commentary Series, edited by 
C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol). 16mo. 
London, Paris, and New York. ; 
Sarprnoux (Pierre-Auguste): Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Galates, précédé 
d’une introduction critique. 8°, Valence, 1837. 
Scuarr (Philip), D.D., Professor of Theology at New York : An Introduction 
and comment on chapters i. ii. of the Epistle to the Galatians [in the 
Mercersburg Review, Jan. 1861]. 
Scuittinec (Johann Georg): Versuch einer Uebersetzung des Briefes an die 
Galater, mit erklarenden Bemerkungen, nach Koppe. 8°, Leip. 1792. 
SCHLICHTING (Jonas), Socinian minister at Racow. See Crell (Johann). 
Scumip (Sebastian), Professor of Theology at Strassburg: Commentarius in 
Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Kiloni, 1690. 
ScHMOLLER (Otto) of Urach, Wiirtemberg : Der Brief Pauli an die Galater theo- 
logisch-homiletisch bearbeitet [in Lange’s Bibelwerk], 8vo, Bielefeld. 
1862 ; 2te Auflage 1865. [Translated by C. C. Starbuck, A.M. ; edited, 
with additions, by M. B. Riddle, D.D. 8°, New York and Edin, 1870.] 
Scuorr (Heinrich August), Professor of Theology at Jena: Epistolae Pauli ad 
Thessalonicenses et Galatas. Textum Graecum recognovit et com- 
mentario perpetuo illustravit H. A. Schott. 8°, Leips. 1834. 
Scuiirze (Theodor Johann Abraham) : Scholia in Epistolam ad Galatas. 
4°, Gerae, 1784. 
SemieR (Johann Salomon), Professor of Theology at Halle: Paraphrasis 
Hpistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 8°, Halae, 1779. 
SeRrpanpo (Girolamo), Cardinal : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas ; 
ad nonnullas quaestiones ex textu Epistolae catholicae responsiones. 
8°, Antyv, 1565. 
SroiBenre (Balthasar), Professor of Greek at Wittenberg : Lectiones publicae in 
Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Wittemb. 1667. 
SrrvuenseE (Adam), pastor at Altona): Erklirung des Briefes an die Galater. 
4°, Flensburg, 1764. 


Trana (August Leopold) : Pauli ad Galatas Epistola. Exposuit, etc. 
8°, Gothob. 1857. 
Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., Professor of Biblical Interpretation at New 
York: The Epistle to the Galatians in Greek and English, with an 
analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1856. 


Ustrrert (Leonhard), Professor of Theology at Berne: Commentar tiber den 
Brief Pauli an die Galater, nebst einer Beilage .. . und einigen Ex- 
cursen. 8°, Zurich, 1833. 


Vicrormnus (C. Marius), teacher of rhetoric at Rome about a.p. 360 : In Epis- 
tolam Pauliad Galatas commentariorum libri duo [in Mai’s Serip, Vet. 
Nov, Coll. iii. 2]. 


Weser (Michael), Professor of Theology at Halle: Der Brief an die Galater 


uebersetzt, mit Anmerkungen. 8°, Leip. 1778. 
Weise (Friedrich), Professor of Theology at Helmstidt : Commentarius in 
Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Helmst. 1705. 


WeEssELtus (Johannes), Professor of Theology at Leyden : Commentarius ana- 
lytico-exegeticus tam litteralis quam realis in Epistolam Pauli ad 
Galatas. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1750. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xiil 


Wreseter (Karl), Professor of Theology at Gottingen: Commentar iiber den 
Brief Pauli an die Galater, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Lehre 


und Geschichte des Apostels. §°, Gotting. 1859. 
WinpIscHMANN (Friedrich), R.C. Professor of Theology at Munich: Erklirung 
des Briefes an die Galater. 8°, Mainz, 1843. 


Winer (Georg Benedict), Professor of Theology at Leipzig: Pauli ad Galatas 
Epistola. Latine vertit et perpetua annotatione illustravit Dr. G. B. 
Winer. 8°, Lips. 1821. Editio quarta aucta et emendata, 1859. 


ZacuaniaE (Gotthilf 'Traugott), Professor of Theology at Kiel : Paraphrastische 
Erklarung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col., und 
Thess. 8°, Gotting. [1771] 1787. 





PREFACE. 


Srvce the days of Luther, who, as is well known, bestowed more es- 
pecial and repeated labor on the exposition of this than of any other 
book of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Galatians has always 
been held in high esteem as the Gospel’s banner of freedom. To it, 
and to the kindred Epistle to the Romans, we owe most directly the 
springing up and development of the ideas and energies of the Reforma- 
tion, which have overcome the work-righteousness of Romanism with all 
the superstition and unbelief accompanying it, and which will in the fu- 
ture, by virtue of their divine life once set free, overcome all fresh re- 
sistance till they achieve complete victory. This may be affirmed even 
of our present position towards Rome. For, if Paul by this Epistle in- 
troduces us into the very arena of his victory ; if he makes us witnesses 
of his not yielding, even for an hour, to the false brethren ; if he bids 
us hear how he confronts even his gravely erring ‘ellow-apostle with the 
unbending standard of divinely-revealed truth ; if he breaks all the 
spell of hypocrisy and error by which the foolish Galatians were bound, 
and in the clear power of the Holy Spirit brilhe tly vindicates what no 
angel from heaven could with impunity have assailed ; how should that 
doctrine, which at this moment the sorely beset old man in the chair of 
the fallible Peter proposes to invest with the halo of divine sanction, — 
how should the éreporv evayyéAroy from Rome, which it is now 
sought to push to the extremity of the most flagrant contradictio in adjecto 
—possibly issue in any other final result than an accelerated process of 
self-dissolution ? It is, in fact, the profoundly sad destiny which a 
blinded and obdurate hierarchy must, doubtless amidst unspeakable mor- 
al harm, fulfil, that it should be always digging further and further at 
its own grave, till at length—and now the goal seems approaching, 
when these dead are to bury their dead—with the last stroke of the spade 
it shall sink into that grave, to rise no more. 

The Epistle to the Galatians carries us back to that first Council of the 
Church, which at its parting could present to the world the simple and 
true self-witness : £005 TO ayio TVEVMATL nat Hiv. How deep 
a shadow of contrast this throws not merely on the Vatican Fathers, but 


xvi PREFACE, 


also—we cannot conceal it—on our own Synods, when their proceed- 
ings are pervaded by a zeal which, carried away by carnal aims, forfeits 
the simplicity, clearness, and wisdom of the Holy Spirit! Under such 
circumstances the Spirit is silent, and no longer bears His witness to the 
conscience ; and instead of the blessing of synodal church-life,—so 
much hoped for, and so much subjected to question,—we meet with 
decrees, which are mere compromises of human minds very much opposed 
to each other,—agreements, over which such a giving the right hand of 
holy fellowship as we read of in this letter (ii. 9) would be a thing im- 
possible. 

In issuing for the fifth time (the fourth edition having appeared in 
1862) my exposition of this Epistle, so transcendently important alike 
in its doctrinal and historical bearings, I need hardly say that I have 
diligently endeavored to do my duty regarding it. I have sought to 
improve it throughout, and to render it more complete, in accordance 
with its design ; and, while doing so, I have striven after a clearness and 
definiteness of expression, which should have nothing in common with 
the miserable twilight-haze and intentional concealment of meaning that 
characterize the selection of theological language in the present day. 





If I have been pretty often under the necessity of opposing the more 
recent expositors of the Epistle or of its individual sections, I need 
hardly give an assurance that I, on my part, am open to, and grateful 
for, any contradiction, provided only some true light is elicited thereby. 
Even if that opposition should come from the energies of youth, which 
cannot yet have attained their full exegetical maturity, I gladly adopt the 
language of the tragedian (Aeschyl. Agam. 583 f.): 


Nixduevoe Adbyorow obk avatvomas 
Aci yap 7Ba Toig yépovew eb wabeiv. 


Dr. MEYER. 
Hannover, 18th June, 1870. 


THE 


EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


INTRODUCTION: 





SEC. I.—THE GALATIANS. 


HE region of Galatia, or Gallograecia,' bounded by Paphlagonia, 
Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, and having as its chief cities 
Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, derived its name fromthe Gauls.? 
For the Gallic tribes of the Tpoxuot and TodcoroBéyo. *—in conjune- 


tion with the Germanic * tribe of the Tectosages, which, accord- 


ing to Strabo, was akin to them in language * 





after invading and devastat- 


ing Macedonia and Greece (Justin. xxiv. 4) about 280 B.c., and establishing 
in Thrace the kingdom of Tyle,® migrated thence under the leadership of 
Leonorius and Lotharius to Asia, where they received a territory from the 
Bithynian king Nicomedes for their services in war. This territory they 
soon enlarged by predatory expeditions ;” although by Attalus, king of 
Pergamus, who conqucred them, it was restricted to the fertile region of 
the Halys.* This powerful, dreaded,*® and freedom-loving '’ people were 
brought into subjection to the Romans by the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso, 
189 B.c. ;” but they still for a long time retained both their Celtic cantonal 
constitution and their own tetrarchs,” who subsequently bore the title of 


1 See generally Strabo, xii. 5. 

2 Tadatar, which is only a later form of the 
original KeAroé or KeArar, Pausan. i. 3, 5. 

3 Strabo, Z.c. p. 566. 

1This serves to explain Jerome’s state- 
ment, based on personal experience (Prol. 
in libr. secund. comment. in ep. ad Gal.), that 
the popular language, which in his time 
was still spoken by the Galatians along 
with Greek, was almost the same (eandem 
paene) with that of the Vreviri. Now the 
Treviri were Germans (Strabo, iv. p. 194), 
and * circa affectationem Germanicae orig- 
inis ultro ambitiosi,”’ ‘‘in the endeavor to 
pass for Germans, very ambitious” (Tacit. 
Germ. 28). Comp. Jablonski, de lingua 
Lycaon. p. 23. See, generally, Diefenbach, 
Celtica, Stuttg. 1839 f.; Rettberg, Kirchen- 


il 


gesch. Deutschl. i. p. 19 ff: The two last. 
without adequate grounds, call in question 
the Germanic nationality of the Galatians. 
See, on the other side, Wieseler, p. 524 ff., 
and in Herzog’s Hncykl. XIX. p. 524. The 
conversion of the Galatians is the begin- 
ning of German Church-history. 

5 Caes. B. Gall. vi. 24; Memnon in Phot. 
cod. 224, p. 374. 

6 Polyb. iv. 45 f. 

7 Liv. xxxviii. 16; Flor. ii. 11; Justin. xxv. 
2; Strabo, iy. p. 187, xii. p. 566. 

8 Strabo, xii. p. 567; Liv. xxxviii. 16. 

9 Polyb. v. 53; 2 Mace. viii. 20. 

10 Flor. ii. 11. 

11 Liv. xxxviii. 12 ff. 

12 Strabo, xii. pp. 541, 567. 


4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


king.’ The last of these kings, Amyntas (put to death 26 B.c.), owed it to 
the favor of Antonius and Augustus that Pisidia and parts of Lycaonia? and 
of Pamphylia were added to his territory.* In the year 26 Galatia, as en- 
larged under Amyntas, became a Roman province.? 

On account of the additional territories thus annexed to Galatia proper 
under Amyntas, it has been maintained that the readers of this epistle are 
not to be looked upon as the Galatians proper, but as the new Galatians, 
that is, Zycaonians (especially the Christians of Derbe and Lystra) and Pisi- 
dians.* But this view ‘is decisively opposed both by the language of Acts 
(xiv. 6, comp. with xvi. 6, xviii. 23), in which the universally current 
popular mode of designation, not based on the new provincial arrange- 
ments, is employed ; and also by the circumstance that Paul could not have 
expressed himself (Gal. i. 2) in a more singular and indefinite way than by 
raic éxkAyolac tHe Tadariac, if he had not meant Galatia proper, the old Gala- 
tia. Nor are any passages found in Greek authors, in which diséricts of 
Lycaonia or Pisidia are designated, in accordance with that extension of the 
limits of the province, by the name of Galatia.® 

The founder of the Galatian churches was Paul himself (Gal. i. 6-8, iv. 
13 ff.) on his second missionary journey, Acts xvi. 6 (not so early as xiv. 6). 
Bodily weakness (iv. 13) had compelled him to make a halt in Galatia, and 
during his stay he planted Christianity there. Looking at the involuntary 
character of this occasion and the unknown nature of the locality to which 
his first work in the country was thus, as it were, accidentally directed, it 
might appear doubtful whether in this case he followed his usual rule, as 
attested in Acts, of commencing his work of conversion with the Jews ; 
but we must assume that he did so,’ for the simple reason that he would be 
sure to seek the shelter and nursing, which in sickness he needed, in the 
house of one of his own nation : comp. on iv. 14. Nor was there any want 
of Jewish residents, possibly in considerable numbers, in Galatia (as we may 
with reason infer from Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 4, xvi. 6. 2, as well as from the 
diffusion of the Jews over Asia generally ; not, however, from 1 Pet. i. 1); 
although from the epistle itself it is evident* that the larger part, indeed 


1Cic. p. rege Deiotaro; Vellei. ii. 84; Fincykl. VV. p. 637 f.; Contzen, Wanderungen 


Appian, v. p. 1135; Plut. Ant. 61. 

2 Not the whole of Lycaonia, particularly 
not the south-eastern portion and Iconium. 
See Riickert, Magaz. I. p. 98 ff. 

3 Dio Cass. xlix. 32, lili. 26; Strabo, xii. 
p. 569. 

4Dio Cass. liii. 26; Strabo, xii. p. 569. 
See generally, in addition to the Commen- 
taries and Introductions, Wernsdorf, de 
republ. Galatar., Norimb. 1743; Hoffmann, 
Introd. theol. crit. in lect. ep. P. ad Gal. et 
Col., Lips. 1750; Schulze, de Galatis, 
Francof. 1756; Mynster, Hin. in d. Brief an 
d. Gal.,in his kl. theol. Schr., Kopenh. 1825, 
p. 49 ff.; Hermes, verwn Galaticar. speci- 
men, Vratisl. 1822; Baumstark, in Pauly’s 
Realencykl. 11. 604 ff. ; Riietschi, in Herzog’s 


der Celten, Leip. 1861. 

5 Joh. Joach. Schmidt (in Michaelis); 
Mynster, Z.c. p. 58 ff. ; Niemeyer, de temp. 
quo ep. ad Gal. ete., Gott. 1827; Paulus, in 
the Heidelb. Jahrb. 1827, p. 636 ff., and Lehr- 
briefe an d. Gal. u. Rim. p. 25 ff. ; Ulrich, in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, ii.; Bottger, Beitr. 
Jand 3; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. 
p. 124. 

6 See Riicxert, Wagaz. I. p. 105 f.; Anger, 
de ratione temp. p. 132 ff. ; Wieseler, Chronol. 
d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 281 f.,and on Gal. p. 530 ff. 

7 As also Neander, de Wette, Wieseler, 
and most others assume, in opposition, 
however, to Schneckenburger (Zweck d. 
Apostelgesch. p. 104), Baur and Hilgenfeld. 

8 See sec. 2. 


INTRODUCTION. 3 


the great majority, of its readers’ consisted of Gentile Christians. The ar- 
guments from the Old Testament (together with a partially rabbinical mode 
of interpretation), which Paul nevertheless employs, were partly based on 
the necessary course of the apostolic preaching which had to announce 
Christ as the fulfilment of Old Testament promises, as well as on the ac- 
quaintance with the Old Testament which was to be presupposed in all 
Christian churches ;? partly suggested to the apostle by the special subject 
itself which was in question ;° partly justified, and indeed rendered neces- 
sary, by the fact that the apostle—who must, at any rate, have taken notice 
of the antagonistic teachers and the means of warding off their attack—had 
to do with churches which had already for a time been worked upon by 
Judaists and had thus been sufficiently introduced to a knowledge of the 
Old Testament. The supposition of Storr, Mynster,* and Credner, that 
great part of the Galatian Christians had been previously proselytes of the 
gate, appears thus to be unnecessary, and is destitute of proof from the epistle 
itself, and indeed opposed to its expressions ; see on iv. 9. 


SEC. II.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS OF THE 
EPISTLE. 


Judaizing Christian teachers with Pharisaic leanings (comp. Acts xvi. 1) 
—emissaries from Palestine (not unbelieving Jews ; Michaelis, Hin/.)—had 
made their appearance among the Galatian churches after Paul, and with 
their attacks upon his apostolic dignity (i. 1, 11, ii. 14), and their assertion 
of the necessity of circumcision for Christians (v. 2, 11, 12, vi. 12 f.), which 
involved as a necessary consequence the obligation of the whole law (v. 8), 
had found but too ready a hearing, so that the Judaizing tendency was on 
the point of getting the upper hand (i. 6, iii. 1, 3, iv. 9 ff., 21, v. 2 ff.,'%). 
Now the question is, whether these anti-Pauline teachers—who, however, 
are not, on account of y. 12, vi. 13, to be considered either wholly or in part 





as proselytes °—made their appearance before,® or not till after,” the second 
visit of the apostle (Acts xviii. 23 ; see sec. 3). From i. 6, ii. 1, it is evi- 
dent that Paul now for the first time has to do with the church as actually 
perverted ; he is surprised and warmly indignant at what had taken place. 
Nevertheless it is evident, from i. 9, v. 3, iv. 16, that he had already spoken 
personally in Galatia against Judaizing perversion, and that with great carn- 
estness. We must therefore assume that, when Paul was among the Gala- 
tians for the second time, the danger was only threatening, but there already 
existed an inclination to yield to it, and his language against it was conse- 
quently of a warning and precautionary nature. It was only after the apos- 
tle’s departure that the false teachers set to work with their perversions ; and 


1 Not the whole, as Hilgenfeld thinks ; other hand, Hilgenfeld, p. 46 f. 


comp. Hofmann. 6 Credner, Riickert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, 
2 Comp. on iy. 21. Reuss, Wieseler, and others. 
3 See sec. 2. 7Neander, de Wette, Hofmann, and 
aPC De C0: others. 


5 Neander, Schott, de Wette; see, on the 


4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


although they did not get so far as circumcision (sce on iv. 10), still they 
met with so much success,’and caused so much disturbance of peace (v. 15), 
that the accounts came upon him with all the surprise which he indicates in 
i G,itisy 12? . 

In accordance with this state of things which gave occasion to the letter, 
it was the object of Paul to defend in it his apostolic authority, and to bring 
his readers to a triumphant conviction of the freedom of the Christian from 
circumcision and the Mosaic law through the justification arising from God’s 
grace in Christ. But we are not entitled to assume that ‘in the liveliness 
of his zeal he represented the matter as too dangerous;’’* the more especially 
as it involved the most vital question of Pauline Christianity, and along 
with it also the whole personal function and position of the apostle, who 
was divinely conscious of the truth of his gospel, and therefore must not be 
judged, in relation to his opponents, according to the usual standard of 
‘* party against party.” 4 

As regards contents, (1) the apologetico-dogmatic portion of the epistle 
divides itself into two branches : (a) the defence of the apostolic standing 
and dignity of Paul, ch. i. and ii., in connection with which the foundation 
of Christian freedom is also set forth in li. 15-21 ; (4) the proof that the 
Christian, through God's grace in Christ, is independent of circumcision and 
Mosaism, ch. iii. and iv. Next, (2) in the hortatory portion, the readers 
are encouraged to hold fast to their Christian freedom, but also not to mis- 
use it, ch. v. Then follow other general exhortations, ch. vi. 1-10; and 
finally an energetic autograph warning against the seducers (vi. 11-16), 
and the conclusion. The idea that the epistle is the reply to a letter of in- 
formation and inquiry from the church,® is neither based on any direct evi- 
dence in the epistle itself (how wholly different is the case with 1 Cor, !) nor 
indirectly suggested by particular passages (not even by iv. 12); and such 
an assumption is by no means necessary for understanding the course and 
arguments of the epistle. 


SEC. IN.—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION—GENUINENESS. 


The date of composition may be gathered from iv. 138, compared with 
Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23. From einyyedcaunv ipiv 76 mpétepov, iv. 18, it is most 
distinctly evident that, when Paul wrote, he had already twice visited Ga- 
latia and had preached the gospel there. The constant use of evayyeAifeodar 
to denote oral preaching precludes us from taking ° rd zpérepov as said with 
relation to his present written instruction. Those, therefore, are certainly 
in error who assume that the epistle was composed after the jirst visit of 
the apostle, whether this first visit be placed correctly at Acts xvi. 67 or 


1 To the extent, at any rate, of an obsery- 4 Baur, Paulus, I. p. 282, ed. 2. 

ance of the Jewish feast-days and seasons 5 Hofmann. 

(iv. 10). 6 With Grotius, and Keil, Anal. IV. 2, 
2 Comp. also Ewald, p. 54; Lechler, apost. p. 70. 

Zeitalt. p. 383. 7 Michaelis. 


3 De Wette. 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


erroneously at Acts xiv. 6.’ As regards the latter, Keil has indeed asserted 
that in ch. i. and ii. Paul continues his history only down to his second 
journey to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 30 ; that he does not mention the apostolic 
conference and decree, Acts xv.;* and that in this epistle his judgment of 
Mosaism is more severe than after that conference. But the journey, ii. 1, 
is identical with that of Acts xv. (see the commentary) ; his omission to men- 
tion the apostolic conference and decree * is necessarily connected with the 
self-subsistent position—wholly independent of the authority of all the other 
apostles, and indeed recognized by the ‘‘ pillars” themselves (ii. 9 f.)—which 
Paul claimed for himself on principle in opposition to Judaizing efforts. 
Therefore neither in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 1 ff., x. 23 ff.), 
nor in that to the Romans (ch. xiv.), nor anywhere else, does he take any 
notice of the Jerusalem decree.4 Assured of his own apostolic indepen- 
dence asa minister of Christ directly called and furnished with the revelation 
of the gospel for the Gentile world in particular, he has never, in any point 
of doctrine, cited in his favor the authority of other apostles or decrees of 
the church ; and he was least likely to do so when, as in the present 
case, the matter at stake was a question not merely affecting some point of 
church-order, but concerning the deepest principles of the plan of salva- 
tion.® Moreover, the first three injunctions of that decree in particular 
(Acts xy. 29) agree so little with the principle of full Christian liberty, con- 
sistently upheld in the letters of the apostle, that we must suppose the decree 
to have speedily—with his further official experience acquired after the coun- 
cil—lost altogether for him its provisional obligation. It is, further, a mis- 
take to apply 7 epiywpoc, Acts xiv. 6, to Galatia, as, besides Keil, also 
Koppe, Borger, Niemeyer, Mynster, Paulus, Béttger, and others, have done; 
for this zepiywpoc can only be the country round Lystra and Derbe, and it is 
quite inadmissible to transfer the name to the Lycaonian region (see sec. 1). 
Lastly, in order to prove a very early composition of the letter, soon after 
the conversion of the readers, appeal has been made to otto tayéwe, 1. 6, but 
without due exegetical grounds (see the commentary); and indeed the men- 
tion of Barnabas in ii. 13 ought not to have been adduced,° for a personal 
acquaintance of the readers with him (which they must certainly have made 
before Acts xv. 39) is not at all expressed init. If, in accordance with all 
these considerations, the epistle was not written after the first visit to Gala- 
tia,—a date also inconsistent with the fact that its contents presuppose a 





1 Keil. 

2 Comp. also Ulrich, /.c, 

3 Against the opinion that the unhistori- 
eal character of the narrative of the apos- 
tolic council and decree may be inferred 
from our epistle (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, 
Hilgenfeld), see on Acts xv. 15 f. The 
Tiibingen school believe that in this epistle 
they have found ‘the Archimedean point 
of their task’ (Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift 
J. histor. Theol. 1855, p. 484). 

4 This uniform silence as to the decree in 
all the epistles shows that that silence in 


our epistle must not be explained either 
by the presumed acquaintance of the Gala- 
tians with it (Schaff, p. 182), or by the idea 
that the apostle was unwilling to supply 
his opponents with any weapon against him 
(Ebrard). 

5‘“*His word as Christ’s apostle for the 
Gentiles must be decree enough for them ” 
(Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 180+ 
See also Wieseler, in Herzog’s Zncykl. XIX. 
p. 528). 

6 Koppe. 


6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


church-life already developed, and an influence of the false teachers which 
had already been some time at work—and if the first visit of the apostle is 
to be placed, not at Acts xiv. 6, but at Acts xvi. 6,7 followed by the second 
visit confirming the churches, Acts xviii. 23, then most modern expositors, 
following the earlier, are right in their conclusion that the epistle was not 
composed until after Acts xviii. 23.° We must reject the views, which place 
the date of composition between Acts xvi. 6 and Acts xviii. 23, as maintained 
by Grotius (on i. 2), Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, Storr, Borger, 
Schmidt, Mynster, or which carry the epistle back to a date even before the 
apostolic conference, as held by Beza, Calvin, Keil, Niemeyer, Paulus,* Bott- 
ger,° Ulrich. 





As we cannot gather from the relative expression obrw rayéuc (i. 6) how 
soon after Acts xviii. 23 the epistle was composed, the year of its composi- 
tion cannot be stated more precisely than (see Introd. to Acts) as about 56 or 
57.6 Hphesus appears to be the place from which it was written ; for Paul 
proceeded thither after his second labors in Galatia (Acts xix. 1). So Theo- 
Rickert, 
however, following Hug, maintains that Paul wrote his epistle very soon 


phylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and most modern expositors. 


after his departure from Galatia, probably even on the journey to Ephesus ; 
but, on the other hand, the passage iv. 18 indicates that after the apostle’s 
departure the Judaists had perverted the churches which he had warned 
and confirmed, and some measure of time must have been required for this, 
although the perversion appears still so recent that there is no adequate 
reason for postponing the composition of the epistle to the sojourn of the 
apostle at Corinth, Acts xx. 3.7 

The usual subscription, which is given by the old codd. B**, K, L, says 


1JTt has been objected, indeed, that on 
this journey Paul only confirmed the 
churches, which presupposes an earlier 
conversion (Acts xy. 36 ff., xvi. 5). But 
Acts xvi. 6 begins anew stage in the his- 
torical narrative, and Phrygia and Galatia 
are separated from those places to which 
the confirming ministry referred. Nor is it 
to be said that in Acts xvi. 6 Paul was with- 
held by the Spirit from preaching in Gala- 
tia. For the hindrance by the Spirit 
affected not Galatia, but the regions along 
the coast of Asia Minor. See on Acts xvi. 6. 

2 So Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hug, de Wette, 
‘Winer, Hemsen, Neander, Usteri, Schott, 
Riickert, Anger, Credner, Guericke, Ols- 
hausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
Bleek, Hofmann, and others. 

3 On Baumg. p. 895, not in the Paraphr. 

4 According to Paulus, the apostle wrote 
to the New-Galatians (see sec. 1), whom he 
converted at Acts xiv. 6 and visited for the 
second time (Gal. xiv. 13) at Acts xiv. 21. 

5 According to Bottger (Beitr. 3, § 1-11), 
the epistle is addressed to the New- Galatians 
(Lycaonians and Pisidians), and was writ- 


ten in the year 51, after the first missionary 
journey of the apostle. Bdottger has re- 
peated Keil’s arguments, and has added 
fresh ones, which are untenable. See their 
copious refutation by Riickert, Magaz. I. 
p. 112 ff. 

6 From the remarkable difference in the 
positions which have been assigned to our 
letter in the history of the apostle—Marcion 
(in Tertull. c. Ware. 5, and in Epiph. Haer. 
xlii. 9), and subsequently Michaelis, Baum- 
garten, Koppe, Schmidt, Keil, Mynster, 
Niemeyer, Paulus, Ulrich, making it the 
very jirst; and Schrader and Ko6hler, the 
very last of the Pauline epistles,—it was 
natural that the year of composition should 
be fixed at the most various dates, even 
apart from the differences of reckoning as 
to the Pauline chronology. In consequence 
of this divergence of opinion as to its his- 
torical position, the statements as to the place 
of composition have necessarily been very 
various (Troas, Corinth, Antioch, Ephesus, 
Rome). 

7 Bleek conjecturally. 


INTRODUCTION. fi 


éypady axd ‘Pouye 3 and Jerome, Theodoret, Euthalius, and the Syrian 
church, as afterwards Baronius, Flacius, Salmasius, Estius, Calovius, and 
others, held this opinion, which arose simply from a misunderstanding of 
iv. 20, vi. 11, and especially vi. 17, and was quite unwarrantably supported 
by ii. 10 (comp. with Rom. xv. 28). Nevertheless, recently Schrader?! and 
KGhler,’ the latter of whom exceeds the former in caprice, again date the 
epistle from Rome. ® 

The genuineness is established by external testimony *— although the 
apostolic Fathers contain no trace in any measure certain, and Justin’s 
writings only a probable trace, of the letter °>—as well as by the completely 
and vividly Pauline cast of the writer’s spirit and language. It is thus 
so firmly established, that, except by Bruno Bauer’s wanton ‘‘ Aritik ” 
(1850), it has never been, and never can be, doubted. The numerous inter- 
polations which, according to Weisse,* the apostolic text has undergone, 
depend entirely on a subjective criticism of the style, conducted with an 
utter disregard of external critical testimony. 





1j, p. 216 ff. 

2 Abfassungzeit der epistol. Schriften, p. 
125 ff. 

3 For the refutation of which their argu- 
ments are not worthy, see Schott, Zrdrte- 
rung, pp. 63 ff., 41 ff., 116 ff. ; Usteri, p. 222 ff. 

4Tren. Haer. iii. 6.5, iii. 7. 2, iii. 16. 3, v. 
21. 1; Tatian, in Jerome; Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iii. p. 468, ed. Sylb. ; Tertull. de prae- 
ser. 6, & al.; Canon Murat., Valentinus in 
Trenaeus, Marcion. 

§ Even in Polyearp, Phil. 5, comp. Gal. vi. 
7, there may be a quite accidental similar- 
ity of expression. Lardner appealed to 


Clem. ad Cor. i. 49; Ignat. ad Philad. 1, ad 
Magnes. 8; Just. Mart. ad Graec. p. 40, ed. 
Colon, and discovered in these passages 
allusions to Gal. i. 4, i. 1, v. 4, iv. 12. There 
appears to be an actual allusion to this last 
passage in Justin, where it runs: yivea@e as 
eyo: OTL Kayo Hunv ws vueis, ** Become as I, 
because I was as you.”’ The probability of 
this is increased by the fact that Justin soon 
afterwards uses the words, €x@pat, €pecs, 
Cndos, épiOetar, Ovuol, Kai Ta Omora TovTots, 
which look like an echo of Gal. v. 20 f. 

6 Beitrdge zur Krit. d. Paulin. Briefe, 
edited by Sulze, 1867, p. 19 ff. 


8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Taviov éexioroAn xpos Takaras. 


A BK 8&8, and many min., also Copt., give simply zpoc Tatarac, which—doubt- 
less the earliest superscription—is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 


CELA TER oi: 


VER. 3. 7u0v] is wanting only in min., Damasc. Aug. (once) ; while A, min., 
Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. Chrys. Ambrosiast. Pel. Ambr. (once), Fulg. place it after 
tatpoc. But as in the other epistolary salutations there is no 7uov after Kupiov, 
it was sometimes omitted, sometimes moved to the position, which it holds in 
the other epistles, after watpéc (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. i. 2, et al.). — 
Ver. 4. repi] Elz. has [with B, 8***] izép, in opposition to ADEFGKL RS, 
and many min., also Or. Theophyl. Oec. This external evidence is decisive, 
although Paul has written iz ép rt. duapr. in 1 Cor. xv. 3. — Ver. 6. Xpiorov] is 
wanting in F G, Boern. Tert. (twice), Cypr. (twice), Lucif. Victorin. But ac- 
cording to the erroneous (although very ancient) connection of Xporod with 
KaAécavtoc, Xpiotov, since the xaAeiv is God's, could not but give offence ; and 
hence in 7, 43,52, Theodoret, Or., it is changed for Ocov. — Ver. 10. ei ér1] Elz. 
Scholz have ei yap érz. But yap is wanting in A B D* F G* §&, min., Copt. 
Arm. Vulg. It. Cyr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers, and has been inserted for the 
sake of connection. — Ver. 11. Instead of dé, B D* F G &**, 17, 213, It. Vulg. 
and Fathers have yép. The latter has mechanically entered from the use of the 
same word before and after (vy. 10, 12). S*** has restored dé. — Ver, 12. 
Instead of vite, A D*¥ F G 8, min, and Greek Fathers have ovdé. So Lachm. 
A mechanical error of copying after the previous oidé. —— Ver. 15. 6 Oxdc] after - 
eidox. is wanting in BF G, 20, and many vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. 
and Schott; deleted by Tisch. ; rejected justly also by Ewald and Wieseler. 
An explanatory addition. — Ver. 17. avj2$0v] B D E F G, 46, 74, Syr. p. 
(in the margin), Bas., have a7jAdov. So Lachm. and Schott, while Elz. Tisch., 
following AKL & Chrys. Vulg. Clar. have av7Adov. Certainly av7A8ov has 
the appearance of interpolation, suggested as well by the direction of the 
journey (comp. dvaBaivew eic ‘Tepocod.) as by ver. 18.— Ver. 18. Instead of 
Ilérpov, supported by Elz., following DF K L &8*] A B 8, min., Syr. Erp. Copt. 
Sahid. Aeth. Syr. p. (in the margin) have Kygadv. Approved of by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Schott, Tisch. The Hebrew name, both here 
and also in ii. 9, 11, 14, was supplanted by the Greek as a gloss ; hence in ii. 7, 
8, where Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation Kydd¢ does not 
oceur. We must not assume that the reading Kydédv arose through several 
Fathers, like Clem. Al. in Eus. i. 12, being unwilling to refer the unfavorable 
account in ii. 11 ff. to the Apostle Peter (Winer), because otherwise the Hebrew 
name would only have been used from ii. 11 onwards, 


CHEAP? 41,7.) Vi. 9 


Conrrnts.—After the apostolic address and salutation (vv. 1-5), Paul 
immediately expresses his astonishment that his readers are so soon falling 
away to a false gospel; against the preachers of which he utters his 
anathema, for he seeks to please God, and not men (vv. 6-10). Next, he 
assures them that his gospel is not of men, for he had not received it from 
any man, but Christ had revealed it to him (vv. 11, 12). In order to con- 
firm this historically, he appeals to his pre-Christian activity in persecution 
and to his Jewish zeal at that time (vv. 13, 14), and gives an exact account 
of his journeys and abodes from his conversion down to his formal acknowl- 
edgment on the part of the original apostles ; from which it must be evident 
that he could be no disciple of the apostles (vv. 15-24). 

Ver. 1. ’Ardato2o¢ ov« az’ avOodruv ois JV avOpdrov, aAAa x.t.A.] Thus does 
Paul, with deliberate incisiveness and careful definition, bring into promi- 
nence at the very head of his epistle his (in the strictest sense) apostolic 
dignity, because doubt had been thrown on it by his opponents in Galatia. 
For by ov« aw’ avOparwv he denies that his apostleship proceeded from men 
(causa remotior, ‘‘the more remote cause”), and by ovdé dv’ avOp. that it came by 
means of & man (causa medians, ‘the mediate cause”), [See Note I., p. 37. | 
Tt was neither of human origin, nor was a man the means of conveying it.’ On 
axé, comp. also Rom. xiil. 1. To disregard the diversity of meaning in the two 
prepositions,’ although even Usteri is inclined to this view (‘‘ Paul meant to 
say that in no respect did his office depend on human authority”), is all the 
more arbitrary, seeing that, while the two negam es very definitely separate 
the two relations, these two relations cannot + expressed by the mere 
change of number.* This in itself would be bu a feeble amplification of 
the thought, and in order to be intelligible, would need to be more dis- 
tinctly indicated (perhaps by the addition of roA2déy and évoc), for otherwise 
the readers would not have their attention drawn off from the difference of 
the prepositions. Paul has in the second instance written not av3pérwr again, 
but avdpérov, because the contrast to 6’ avbpérov is dia "Inood Xprorov. [See 
Note II., p. 37.] It was not a man, but the exalted Christ, through whom 
the divine call to the apostleship came to Paul at Damascus ; airic 6 deoréryc 
ovpavédev éxaddecev ovK avdpaotw ypnodpuevoc brovpy@, Theodoret. And this 
contrast is quite just : for Christ, the incarnate Son of God, was indeed as 
such, in the state of His self-renunciation and humiliation, dv0peroc (Rom. 
vy. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21), and in His human manifestation not specifically dif- 
ferent from other men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom. viii. 8) ; but in His 
state of exaltation, since He is as respects His whole divine-human nature 
in heaven (Eph. i. 20 ff. ; Phil. ii. 9, iii. 20, 21), He is, although subor- 
dinate to the Father (1 Cor. iii. 23, xi. 3, xv. 28, e¢ al.), partaker of the 
divine majesty which He had before the incarnation, and possesses in His 
whole person at the right hand of God divine honor and divine dominion.‘ 


1 Comp. Bernhardy, pp. 222, 236; Winer, any man ;” comp. Bengel, Semler, Morus, 
p. 390. Rosenmiiller. 
2 Semler, Morus, Koppe, and others. 4 Comp. generally, Usteri, Lehrdegr. p. 327 ; 
3 Koppe, ‘‘non hominum, ne cujusquam Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 306. 
quidem hominis,” “not of men, not even of 


10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


[See Note III., p. 87.]—xai Oeod rarpéc] Following out the contrast, we 
should expect kai a6 Ocot ratp. But availing himself of the variety of form 
in which his idea could be set forth, Paul comprehends the properly two- 
fold relation under one preposition, since, in point of fact, with respect to 
the modification in the import of the d:a, no reader could doubt that here 
the principle cause is conceived also as mediate. As to this usage of éva in 
popular language, see on 1 Cor. i. 9. Christ is the mediate agent of Paul’s 
apostleship, inasmuch as Christ was the instrument through which God 
called him ; but God also, who nevertheless was the principal cause, may 
be conceived of under the relation of dév4 (comp. iv. 7 ; Lachmann), inas- 
much as Christ made him His apostle, ov« dvev Ocod tazpédc, but, on the con- 
trary, through the working of God, that is, through the interposition of the 
divine will, which exerted its determining influence in the aet of calling 
(comp. 1 Cor. i. 1; 2Cor.i. 1; Eph.i.°% 5 Col. i. 1; 1 Tima eae 
1.)!1— The words Ocov rarpé¢ (which together have the nature of a proper 
name: comp. Phil. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 23; 1 Pet. i. 2), according to the 
context, cf. Rom. vi. 4, present God as the Father of Jesus Christ, not as 
Father generally (de Wette ; comp. Hilgenfeld), nor as our Father (Paulus, 
Usteri, Wieseler). [See Note IV., p. 37.] The Father is named after the 
Son by way of climax (comp. Eph. v. 5): in describing the superhuman 
origin of his apostleship Paul proceeds from the Higher to the Highest [see 
Note V., p. 38], without ~ hom (see what follows), Christ could not have 
called him. Of course t “calling by Christ is the element decisive of the 
true dzooro’# (Wieseler); “:t ** would remain so, even if Paul, advancing 
to the more definite agent “' -waed Christ after God. The supposition 
of a dogmatic precautior heodoret, iva ph tic broadBy brovpyoy elvar Tod 
marpo¢ Tov vidy, ebpov mpoc yitvov TO did, expyaye Kad Ocod marpéc, ‘*In order 
that no one might suppo: : that the Son is the subordinate of the Father, 
after having used the adjacent dvd, he added xai Ocov ratpdc ;” comp. Chry- 
sostom, Calovius, and others) would be as irrelevant and inappropriate as 
Riickert’s opinion is arbitrary, that Paul at first intended merely to write 
dia ’I. X., and then added as an after-thought, but inexactly (therefore 
without a6), xa? Ocod matpdc. — Tod éyeipavroc avrov éx vexpov] For Paul was 
called to be an apostle by the Christ who had been raised up bodily from 
the dead by the Father (1 Cor. xv. 8, ix. 1 ; Acts ix. 22, 26) ; sothat these 
words involve a historical confirmation of that «ai Oeov rarpé¢ in its special 
relation as thoroughly assuring the full apostolic commission of Paul :? they 
are not a mere designation of God as originator of the work of redemption (de 
Wette), which does not correspond to the definite connection with aréc- 
toaoc. According to Wieseler, the addition is intended to awaken faith 
both in Jesus as the Son and in God as ourreconciled Father. But apart 
from the fact that the Father is here the Father of Christ, the idea of recon- 
ciliation does not suggest itself at this stage ; and the whole self-description, 


1 Comp. Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, dia tod Geod 2 Comp. Beyschlag in Stud. u. Krit. 1864, 
TovTov kuBepvatac, and Rom. Xi. 36, 6’ avtod ~— pp. 225. 
7a mavta; Winer, p. 354 f. 


CHAP: T.,, 2. Ji 


which is appended to Iaioc, is introduced solely by his consciousness of 
Sull apostolic authority: it describes by contrast and historically what in 
other epistles is expressed by the simple «Ayric axéorodoc. The opinion that 
Paul is pointing at the reproach made against him of not having seen Christ, 
and that he here claims the pre-eminence of having been the only one 
called by the evalted Jesus (Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, Menochius, Estius, 
and others), is inappropriate, for the simple reason that the resurrection 
of Christ is mentioned in the form of a predicate of God (not of Christ). 
This reason also holds good against Matthies (comp. Winer), who thinks 
that the divine elevation of Christ is the point intended to be conveyed. 
Chrysostom and Oecumenius found even a reference directed against the 
validity of the Mosaical law, and Luther (comp. Calovius) against the trust in 
one’s own righteousness. [See Note VI., p. 38.] 

Ver. 2. Kal of oby éuol ravtec adeAdoi] adeApoi denotes nothing more than 
JSellow- Christians ; but the words civ éuoi place the persons here intended in 
special connection with the person of the apostle (comp. ii. 3; Phil. iv. 
21) : the fellow-Christians who are in my company. This is rightly under- 
stood as referring to his travelling companions, who were respectively his 
official assistants, at the time,’ just as Paul, in many other epistles, has con- 
joined the name of official associates with his own (1 Cor.i. 1 ; 2 Cor.i. 1; 
Phitat; Col. i.1; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i,.4}.- Instead of mentioning 
their names,* which were perhaps known to the ( alatians at least in part— 
possibly from his last visit to them (Acts xviii. 2° or in some other way— 
he uses the emphatic ravtec (which, however)'by% 9 means implies any very 
large number, as Erasmus and others, inchs jhausen, have supposed), 
indicating that these brethren collectively desire. 40 address the very same 
instructions, warnings, exhortations, etc., to th -Galatians, whereby the 
impressive effect of the epistle, especially as regarzs the apostle’s opponents, 
could not but be strengthened, and therefore was certainly intended to be so 
strengthened (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, and 
others). At the same time, there is no need to assume that his opponents 
had spread abroad the suggestion that some one in the personal circle of 
the apostle did not agree with him in his teaching (Wieseler) ; actual indi- 
cations of this must have been found in the epistle. Others have thought 
of all the Christians in the place where he was then sojourning (Erasmus, Estius, 
Grotius, Calovius, and others ; also Schott), This is quite opposed to the 
analogy of all the other epistles of the N. T., not one of which is composed 
in the name of a church along with that of the writer. It would, in that 
case, have been more suitable that Paul should have either omitted civ éuot 
(comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20), or expressed himself in such a way as to intimate, 
not that the church was oiv aire, but that he was civ airoic. To refer it 
(with Beza) to the office-bearers of the church, is quite arbitrary ; for the 


1 Calvin, Morus, Semler, Koppe, Borger ; mayr. 
comp. Ellicott. 3 Which indeed he might have done, even 
2 Comp. Pareus, Hammond, Semler, Mi- if the epistle had been, as an exception, 
chaelis, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Winer, written by hisown hand (but see on vi. 11) ; 
Paulus, Riickert, Usteri, Wieseler, Reith- so that Hofmann’s view is erroneous. 


Wy THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


readers could not recognize this in ody éuoi without further explanation. — 
Taig éxkAyoiatc tHe Tadar.| consequently a circular epistle to the several inde- 
pendent ers The relations of the churches were different in Achaia : 
see on 1 Cor. i. 2 Cor.i. 1. The fact that Paul adds no epithet of honor 
(as KAyroic dyiore, “ called to be saints,” or the like) is considered by Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and by Winer, Credner, Olshausen (comp. 
Riickert), Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, a sign of indignation. Comp. Grotius, 
‘quia coeperant ab evangelio declinare,” ‘‘ because they were beginning to 
decline from the gospel.” And justly so ; because it is in Leen aa the 
displeasure and chagrin which induce fa afterwards to refrain from all 
such favorable testimony as he elsewhere usually bears to the Christian be- 
havior of his readers, and, on the contrary, to begin at once with blame 
(ver. 6). In no other epistle, not even in the two earliest, 1 and 2 Thess., 
has he employed an address so abrupt, and one so faeccrpr ade by any 
complimentary recognition ; it is not sufficient, therefore, to appeal to the 
earlier and later ‘‘usage of the apostle” (Hofmann). 

Ver. 3. Ocov ratpéc] refers here, according to the context, to the Chris- 
tians, who through Christ have received the viotecia. See iv. 26 ff.; Rom. 
vili. 15.— See, further, on Rom. i. 7. 

Ver. 4. This addition prepares the readers thus early for the recognition 
of their error ; for their adhesion to Judaism was indeed entirely opposed 
to the aim of the atoning death of Jesus. Comp. ii. 20, iii. 13 ff. ‘‘ See 
how he directs every word against self-righteousness,” Luther’s gloss. [See 
Note VIL, p. 38]. — rod dévro¢ éavrdv] that is, who did not withhold (é¢eicaro, 
Rom. viii. 32), but swrrendered Himself, namely, to be put to death.’ This 
special application of the words was obvious of itself to the Christian con- 
sciousness, and is placed beyond doubt by the addition rep? r. duapr. ju. 
Comp. Matt. xx. 28; Eph. v. 25; Tit. ii. 145 1-Tim: ii, 6 >) idee 
44 ; and Wetstein in ie — epi Tov duapt. ju.| in respect of our sins (Rom. 
Vill. 3), 01 account of them, namely, in order to atone for them. See Rom, iii. 
23 ff. ; Gal. iii. 12 ff. In essential sense zepi is not different from trép,? 
and the idea of satisfaction is implied, not in the signification of the prep- 
osition, but in the whole nature of the case.* As to mepi and trép in 
respect to the death of Jesus, the latter of which (never zep/) is always used 
by Paul when the reference to persons is expressed, see further on 1 Cor. 1. 
ISH >:G% oF ae écéAnrat nuac x.t.A.] End, which that self-surrender was to 
attain. The évecrac aidv is usually understood as equivalent to 6 aidy obroc, 6 viv 
Certainly in practical meaning éveora¢ 
6 éveotac ypdvoc, tempus 
gested by the literal 


aiév, ‘*this world, the present world.” 
may denote present (hence in the grammarians, 
praesens), but always only with the definite reference sug 


1Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49, ro atua avrod 
édwxev Urép nuwv, ‘‘His blood He gave for 
you.’ For instances from Greek authors 
of eSwxev Eavtov, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. 
p. 348. 

21 Pet. iii. 18; Matt. xxvi. 28; Heb. x. 26, 
xiii. 11; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17; Eur. Alc. 176, 
comp. 701; Hom. J/, xii. 243, comp. i. 444; 


see Buttmann, Jnd. ad Mid. p. 188; Schaef- 
er, App. Dem. I. p. 190; Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. 
p. 188, Goth. 

3 Hom. J/. i. 444: DoiBw.. . éxatouByny pegar 
tmép Aavaar, ‘‘ to offer a hecatomb to Phoe- 
bus, for the benefit of the Dandi,”’ op’ itago- 
peoda avaxra, ‘ to appease the king.” 


CHAP. I., 4. 13 


signification, setting in, that is, im the course of entrance, that which has 
already begun.' Now, as this definite reference of its meaning would be 
quite unsuitable to designate the aiav oiroc, because the latter is not an acon 
just begun, but one running its course from the beginning and lasting until 
the zapovoia ; and as elsewhere Paul always describes this present aidv as the 
aidiv ovtog (Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20 ; and frequently : comp. 6 viv aidr, 
1 Tim. vi. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 10 ; Tit. ii. 12), we must explain it as the period of 
time which is already in the act of setting in, the evil time which has already 
begun, that is, the time immediately preceding the zapovoia, so that the aidv 
éveotoc is the last part of the aidv oiroc. [See Note VIIL., p. 38.] — This aidv 
évecroc is not only very full ef sorrow through the dolores Messiae (see on 
1 Cor. vii. 26), to which, however, the ethical rovypéc in our passage does 
not refer ; but it is also in the highest degree immoral, inasmuch as many 
fall away from the faith, and the antichristian principle develops great 
power and audacity (2 Thess. ii. 3 ff. ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. ; 2 Tim. iii. 1 ff. ; 2 
Pet. iii. 3; Jude 18; 1 John ii. 18 ; Matt. xxiv. 10-12).2 On that account 
this period of time is pre-eminently 6 aidv rovnpdc. With his idea of the 
nearness of the zapovoia, Paul conceived this period as having then already 
begun (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 7), although its full development was still in re- 
serve (2 Thess. 11. 8). Accordingly, the same period is here designated 6 
aloyv éveoté¢ Which in other places is called kacpo¢ écyarog (1 Pet. i. 5), éoyarac 
quépae (Acts 1.17; 2 Tim. iii. 1), éoydry dpa (A John ii. 18), and in Rab- 
binie }P. or NOtor Ht INAS (say ii. 2:3 Jer: xxiti. 20; Mic. iv. 1). 
Christ, says Paul, desired by means of His atoning death to deliver us out of 
this wicked period, that is, to place us out of fellowship with it [see Note IX., 
p. 88], inasmuch as through His death the guilt of believers was blotted out, 
and through faith, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the new moral life—the life 
in the Spirit—was brought about in them (Rom. vi. 8). Christians have be- 
come objects of God’s love and holy, and as such are now taken out of that 
aiov rovypéc, so that, although living in this aiév they yet have nothing in 
common with its rovypia.* The é£éAyrat, moreover, has the emphasis and is 
accordingly prefixed. For how antagonistic to this separation, designed by 
Christ, was the fellowship with the aiay rovypé¢ into which the readers had 
relapsed through their devotion to the false teachers !—Observe, moreover, 
that the aiév rovypée forms one idea, and therefore it was not necessary to 





4 It is therefore self-evident how unjust is 
the objection taken by Hilgenfeld to our 
interpretation, that it limits the Redeemer’s 
death to this short period of transition. 
This the apostle inno way does, but he 
portrays redemption concretely, displaying 
the whole importance and greatness of its 
salvation by the force of strongest contrast. 
This remark also applies to Wieseler’s ob- 
jection. Comp. Barnabas, Zp. 10, where 


1 So not merely in passages such as Dem. 
255. 9, 1466. 21 ; Herodian, ii. 2. 3; Polyb. i. 
ip. 238 Hsd. vy. 47, ix. 6; 3 Macc. i. 16, but 
also in Xen. Hell. ii. 1.5; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 
8785 Dinarch. i. 93; Polyb. i. 88. 2, i. 60. 9, 
vil. 5. 4 ; 2 Mace. iii. 17, vi. 9; comp. Schweig- 
hduser, Lex. Polyb. p. 219; Dissen, ad Dem. 
Ce Cor. p. 350. So also universally in the 
Nee Rom- vill. 883 1 ‘Cor: iis 22) vil. 265 2 
Thess. li. 2 (comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1; Heb. ix. 9). 


2 Comp. Usteri, /.c. p. 348 ff.; Liicke and 
Huther on 1 John ii. 18. 
3 See Schoettgen, Hor. ad 2 Tim. iii. 1. 


the righteous man, walking in this world, 
Tov &ytov ai@va éxdéxetar, ** looks forward to 
the holy world.” 


14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


repeat the article before zovypoi (as Matthias contends).'—xard 7d CéAnua 
k.7.A.] strengthens the weight of the érw¢ ééAyra «.7.2.., to which it belongs. 
Comp. Eph. i. 4 f. ; Col. i. 18 f. The salvation was willed by God, to whom 
Christ was obedient (Phil. ii. 8) ; the reference of kara rt. Ged. k.7.2. to the 
whole sentence from rov dévrog onwards ”® is less simple and unnecessary. The 
connection with zovypov* would only be possible, if the latter were predica- 
tive, and would yield an idea entirely paradoxical. —r. Ocod x. rarp. hu. | 
of God, who (through Christ) is our Father. Comp. Phil. iv. 20; 1 Thess. 
i, 3, i. 11, 18. As to the cai, comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Eph. i. 3 : from the 
latter passage it must not be concluded that judy belongs also to Ocov. The 
more definite designation x. zatp. 7yuav conveys the motive of the 3éAnua, love. 

Ver. 5. Tothe mention of this counsel of deliverance the piety of the apostle 
annexes a doxology. Comp. 1 Tim. i. 17; Rom. ix. 5, xi. 86, xyie27e 
Eph. iii. 21. — 7 dda] that is, the honor due to Him for this 8éAnua. We 
have to supply ei7, and not éo7i (Vulgate, Hofmann, Matthias), which 7s zn- 
serted (Rom. i. 25 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11) where there is no doxology. So in the 
frequent doxologies in the apostolic Fathers, e.g. Clement, Cor. I. 20, 88, 
43, 45, 50, 58.° 

Ver. 6. Without prefixing, as in other epistles, even in those to the Cor- 
inthians, a conciliatory preamble setting forth what was commendable in his 
readers, Paul at once plunges in mediam rem. He probably wrote without 
delay, immediately on receiving the accounts which arrived as to the falling 
away of his readers, while his mind was still in that state of agitated feeling 
which prevented him from using his customary preface of thanksgiving and 
conciliation,—a painful irritation (wvpoiua:, 2 Cor. xi. 29), which was the 
more just, that in the case of the Galatians, the very foundation and sub- 
stance of his gospel threatened to fall to pieces. — Vavuafw] often used by 
Greek orators in the sense of surprise at something blameworthy.* In the 
N.T., comp. Mark vi. 6 ; John vii. 21 ; 1 John iii. 13. —oirw rayéwe]| so very 
quickly, so recently, may denote either the rapid development of the apostasy 
(comp. 2 Thess. li. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22; Wisd. xiv. 28), as Chrysostom (ovdé 
Xpdvov déovrat of avatavrec bude k.T.A.), Theophylact, Koppe, Schott, de Wette, 
Windischmann, Ellicott, Hofmann, Reithmayr understand it ; or its early oc- 
eurrence (1 Cor. iv. 19 ; Phil. ii. 19, e¢ al.), whether reckoned from the last 
visit of the apostle (Bengel, Flatt, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler) or from the conver- 
sion of the readers (Usteri, Olshausen). The latter is preferable, because it 
corresponds with az6 tov xakécavtoc x.7.2., whereby the time of the calling is 
indicated as the terminus a quo. Comp. iii. 1-3. [See Note X., p. 88 seq. ] This 
view is not inconsistent with the fact that the epistle was written a consider- 
able time after the conversion of the readers ; for, at all events, they had 
been Christians for but a few years, which the oirw rayéwe as a relative idea 
still suits well enough. By their yweratidecda: they showed themselves to be 





1 See Kriiger, § 57. 2. 3. 5 Comp. the customary evAoynrés, sé. ein, at 

2 Bengel, Wieseler, probably also MHof- Rom. ix. 5; Eph. i.3. See, further, on Eph. 
mann. ili. 21. 

3 Matthias. 6 Dem. 349. 3; Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 5113 


4 Hofmann. Abresch, Diluc. Thue. p. 309. 


CHAP. i556. 15 


rpéckarpor (Matt. xiii, 21), and this surprises the apostle. As to oitw, comp. 
on ili. 3. — perarivecde] petatidnu, to transpose, in the middle, to alter one’s 
opinion, to become of another mind, and generally to fall away.’ It 
might also be understood in a passive sense (Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 
ueratid., not uerdyecde, is used : o¢ éxi apbyor, ‘tas to the faint-hearted ;” 
Beza, ‘‘verbum passivum usurpavit, ut culpam in _ pseudo-apostolos 
derivet,” ‘‘He has employed a passive verb, in order to cast the blame 
upon the false apostles”). But the use of the middle in this sense is 
the common one ; so that the passive sense, and the nicety which, accord- 
ing to Beza, is involved in it, must have been more definitely indicated to 
the reader in order to be recognized. The present tense denotes that the 
readers were still. in the very act of the falling away, which began so soon 
after their conversion. According to Jerome, the word itself is in- 
tended to convey an allusion to the name Galatia : ‘‘ Galatia enim transla- 
tionem in nostra lingua sonat,” ‘‘for in our tongue, Galatia means trans- 
ferral” am. ; hence 7913, ns04, carrying away). Although approved by 
Bertholdt, this idea is nevertheless an empty figment, because the thing sug- 
gested the expression, and these Hebrew words denote the peratidectac in 
the sense of evile.? But from an historical point of view, the appeals of 
Grotius and Wetstein to the fickleness of the (Gallic character? are not 
without interest as regards the Galatians. — a76 tov xahécavtog ipae év yapite 
X.]* The tov xatécartoc is not to be taken with Xporov, as Syr., Jerome, 
Erasmus (in the version, not in the paraphrase and annotations), Luther, 
Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, also Morus and Flatt, understand it ; 
against which may be urged, not (with Matthies and Schott) the want of 
the article before Xpuoroi (see on Rom. ix. 5 ; comp. also 1 Pet. i. 15), but 
the fact that the calling into the kingdom of the Messiah is presented by 
Paul (and the apostles generally) so constantly as the work of God, that we 
must not deviate from this analogy in explaining the words.® Thence, also, 
tov kadéc. is not to be taken as neuter, and referred to the gospel (Ewald) ; 
but 6 xazécac is God, and Xpiorov belongs to év yapitt, from him who has 
called you through the grace of Christ. [See Note XI. p. 39.] 
Xprorod is instrumental ; for the grace of Christ (Acts xv. 11 ; Rom. v. 15; 
2 Cor. vili. 9; Tit. iii. 6: comp. also Rom. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xii. 9, xiii. 13 ; 
Philem. 25), viz., the favor of Christ unmerited by sinful men, according to 
which He gave up His life to atone for them (comp. ver. 4), is that by which, 
4.e., by the preaching of which, the divine calling reaches its subjects ; comp. 
Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24. So xadeiv with év, 1 Cor. vii. 15 ; Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Thess. 
iv. 7 ; to which passages the interpretation ‘‘ on the ground of grace’ is not 
suitable. Others take év for eic ;7 so that by brevity of language év, indicat- 


"Hy yapere 


1 With cis, App. Hisp. 17; Ecclus. vi. 8; 
With mpos, Polyb. xxvi. 2.6. See Wetstein 
an loc. ; Kypke, II. p. 273; Ast. ad Plat. de 
Leg. p. 497; from the LXX., Schleusner, 
8.0. ; and from Philo, Loesner, p. 825. 

2 See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 285. 

3 Caes. B. Gail. iii. 19, iv. 5, ii. 1, iii. 10. 


4On amo, away from, comp. 2 Mace. vii. 
24; and see generally, Kiihner, § 622 ¢. 

5 See on Rom. i. 6; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. 
p. 387. 

® Wieseler. 

7 Vulgate, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, 
Beza, ete., also Borger and Rickert. 


16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


ing the result of the direction, includes within it this also ; see Winer, 
p- 888. This is unnecessarily forced, for such a constructio praegnans in Greek 
and in the N. T. is undisputed only in the case of verbs of motion (as 
épxeo¥a, eiovévar, éurintev, k.7.A.)."_ In point of.sense, moreover, this view is 
liable to the objection that the «jouw always refers to the Messianie kingdom,? 
and the grace of Christ is that which procures the Messianic cwrnpia (Rom. vy. 
15, et al.), and not the curypia itself. On the absence of the article before 
xapizz, see Winer, p. 118 f.—Observe, moreover, how the whole mode of 
setting forth the apostasy makes the readers sensible of its antagonism to 
God and salvation! Comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret. — eic érepov ebayy] 
to a gospel of a different kind, from that, namely, which was preached to you 
when God called you. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4. The contrast is based on the 
previous designation of their calling as having taken place év ydpite Xpuorod 
(not somehow by the law),—a statement clearly enough indicating the spe- 
cific nature of the Pauline gospel, from which the nature of the Judaistic 
teaching, although the Galatians had likewise received the latter as the 
gospel for which it had been passed off, was withal so different (érepor). 
Comp. ver. 8. 

Ver. 7. The expression just used, ei¢ érepov evayyédcov, was a paradoxical 
cne, for in the true sense there is only one gospel : it seems to presuppose 
the existence of several evayyéda, but only serves to bring into clearer light 
the misleading efforts of the Judaists, and in this sense the apostle now 





explains it. — 6 ov« éotw GAAo, ei ph K.T.A] which érepov ebayyéduov, to which ye 
have fallen away, is not another, not a second gospel, alongside of that by 
means of which ye were called (d/o, not érepov again), except there are certain 
persons who perplex you, etc. That is, this érepov evayyéduov is not another by 
the side of the former, only there are certain persons who perplex you ; so that 
in this respect only can we speak of érepov ebayyédvov as if it were an d2Ao.° 
It must be observed that the emphasis is laid first on oi« and then on ao ; 
so that, although Paul has previously said ci¢ érepov ebayyédcov, he yet guards 
the oneness of the gospel, and represents that to which he applied the 
words érepov eiayy as only the corruption and perversion of the one (of the evayy. 
Tov Kadécavroc bude év yapite Xpiorov). Thus’ei wf retains its general meaning 
nisi, unless, without any need to assume (with Matthies) an abbreviation for 
el pn GAAo éoTi bia TOUT, Te Tivéc Eloy of Tapdcoovrec K.T.A., ‘‘ unless there is 
another, for the reason that there are some who disturb you.” * The two em- 


1Comp. also Hartung, wéber ad. Kas. p. qui,” etc., ‘unless perchance their influence 
68 f. isto be highly esteemed, who,” ete. But 


21 Thess. ii. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 
145 1 Peto wed0k) Reve xx. 9) er a7, > also 
1 Cor. i. 9, and passages such as Col. iii. 15; 
1 Thess. iv. 7. 

3 So in substance Wieseler and Hoffmann; 
comp. Matthias. 

4 Fritzsche, ad Mare. vi. 5, takes «i py 
ironically, and ties in the well-known 
sense, people of importance (see on Acts Vv. 
36, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 731): ‘nist 
Sorte magni est facienda eorum auctoritas, 


the article which follows renders this inter- 
pretation not at all necessary (see below). 
Besides, in this sense Paul uses unly the 
neuter (see ii. 6, vi. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 7). Lastly, 
he is fond of designating false teachers, 
adversaries, etc., as tues, that is, guidam, 
quos nominare nolo, *‘some whom I am 
unwilling to mention.” (Hermann, ad 
Viger. l.c.). See il Cor. iv. 18; 2 Corin 1; 
Gal. ii. 12,1 Cor. xv. 12; 1 Tim. i. 3. 


CHAPS Ty lis BL 


phatic words érepov and ao preserve, however, their distinction in sense : dAAo 
meaning absolutely another, that is, a second likewise existing (in addition 
to the one gospel); and érepov one ef another kind, different.’ [See Note XIL., 
p- 39.] The interpretation most generally received® connects 6 ob« ati dAdo 
merely with evayyéAcov,* and for the most part understands ei uw adversatively, 
“* Neque tamen est ulla alia doctrina de Jesu Christo vera ; sunt vero homines,” 
“nor is any other doctrine of Jesus Christ true ; but there are men,” etc., 
Koppe. Against this interpretation may be urged, first, the fact that érepov 
previously had the chief emphasis laid on it, and is therefore quite unwar- 
rantably excluded from the reference of the rclative which follows ; second- 
ly, that Paul must have logically used some such expression as wi bvto¢ aAA07'; 
and lastly, that ei “7 never means anything else than nisi, unless, not even in 
passages such as ii. 16 ; Matt. xii. 4 (see on this passage) ; Luke iv. 26° 1 
Cor. vii. 17 ; and Rev. ix. 4, xxi. 27.4 Others, as Calvin, Grotius (not Calo- 
vius), Homberg, Winer, Riickert, Olshausen, refer 6 to the whole contents of 
bre obtw Tayéwo . . . Evayyéduov, ‘‘ quod quidem (se. vos deficere a Christo) non 
est aliud, nisi, etc., the case, viz., your departure from Christ is not otherwise 
than.” ° But by this interpretation the whole point of the relation, so Paul- 
ine in its character, which 6 ov« éotw dAdo bears to érepov, is lost ; and why 
should the more special explanation of the deficere a Christo be annexed in 
so emphatic a form, and not by a simple ydp or the like? Lastly, Schott °® 
regards 6 ov« éoTev 4220 as a parenthesis, and makes ei jf rivec x.7.4. depend on 
Savudtw x.7.2.; so that that, which is expressed in the words Javudlw k.t.2., 
by et uy civec x.7.2. ‘‘limitibus cireumscribatur proferenda defectionis causa, 
qua perpendenda illud Gavuatew vel minuatur vel tollatur,” ‘is circumscribed 
by limits to set forth the cause of the defection, by weighing which the 
Savudtew is cither diminished or removed.” This is incorrect, for logically 
Paul must have written @Saiwafov dv. . . et uy tTiwec joav ; and with what 
arbitrary artifice 6 ov« éorw a2Ao is thus set aside, and, as it were, aban- 
doned, and yet the reference of the 6 to the emphatic érepov is assumed ! — 
ol tapdcoorvrec tac| The participle with the article designates the tvvéc as 
those whose characteristic was the rapaccew of the Galatians, as persons who 
dealt in this, who were occupied with it.” [See Note XIIL., p. 39.] On 
tapdocevv, in the sense of perplexing the faith and principles, comp. here 


lérepov kau avouorov, ‘different and dis- 
similar.” Plat. Conv.p.186 B. Dem. 911.7; 
Soph. Phil. 501, O. C.1446; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 
8 (and Kriigerin/oc.), Wisd. vii. 5 ; Judith 
viii. 20. In the N. T., comp. especially 
1 Cor. xii. 8-10, xv. 40; 2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts 
iv. 12; also 1 Cor. xiv. 21; Rom. vii. 23 ; Mark 
Xvi. 12; Luke ix. 29. Comp.also the ex- 
pression étepov rapa tr, Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Phaed. p.'71 A., Rep. p. 337 E. 

2 Peschito, Chrysostom,Oecumenius, The- 
odoret, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 
Wolf, Bengel, and many others ; also Mo- 
tus, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Usteri, de Wette, 
Hilgenfeld, Reithm. 


2 


3 So already the Marcionites, who proved 
from this passage that there was no other 
gospel than theirs! See Chrysostom in Jac. 

4 Comp. Hom. Od. xii. 325 f., obd€ tus aAAos 
ylyver’ emert’ aveuwr, et 4H Evpos te Noros te, 
““no other wind then arose, save only the 
east and the south,” and the passages in 
Poppo, ad Thue. Il. 1, p. 216. 

5 Winer. 

® So also Cornelius & Lapide. 

7 Comp. the very usual ciciv ot Aé€yortes ; 
also Luke xviii. 9; Col. ii. 8. See generally 
Winer, p. 104; Kriiger, § 50. 4.3; Fritzsche, 
Quaest. Luk. p. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. 
Dp. 238, 


18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


and v. 10, especially Acts xv. 24; Ecclus. xxviii. 9. — xal SéAovre¢ perac- 
tpéya] ‘*re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe,” ‘‘ they really were 
not able, yet they earnestly wished it,” Bengel ; ‘‘volunt . . . sed non valent,” 
‘they wish, but are not capable,” Jerome. On the other hand, the rapdc- 
cew of the Galatians actually took place. —The article before rap. refers to 
Gédovtec as Well.’ — petactpépa, to pervert, that is, to alter so that it acquires 
an entirely opposite nature.” — 7d eiayy. tov X.] see generally on Mark i. 1. 
The genitive is here not auctoris, of the author, but, as expressing the spe- 
cific characteristic of the one only gospel in contradistinction to those who 
were perplexing the Galatians, objecti, the genitive of the object (concerning 
Christ). This is evident from ver. 6, where év ydpit: Xpiorod indicates the 
contents of the gospel. 

Ver. 8. ’AAAd, not but, as an antithesis to ob« gore dAdo (Hofmann), 
which has already been fully disposed of by ¢ u7 «.7.2. It is rather the 
however confronting most emphatically the tivé¢ eicw of tapacoovtes K.7.A. 
‘There are some, etc. ; whoso, however, so behaves, let him be accursed !” 
This curse pronounced by the apostle on his opponents is indirect, but, 
because it is brought about by a conclusion @ majori ad minus, all the more 
emphatic. —xai éav] to be taken together, even in the case that.* — jyeic| 
applies primarily and chiefly to the apostle himself, but the civ éyot ravrec 
adeAgoi (ver. 2) are also included. [See Note XIV., p. 89.] To embrace in 
the reference the associates of the apostle in founding the Galatian churches * 
is premature, for these are only presented to the reader in the einyyeAcodpeda 
which follows. — dyyedoc é& oipavoi to be taken together : an angel ovpavéder 
xataBac (Hom. Jl. xi. 184). Comp. dayyedou év otpavé, Matt. xxii. 30. [See 
Note XV., p. 39.] If Paul rejects both his own and angelic authority—con- 
sequently even the supposed superhuman intervention (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 1)— 
with reference to the case assumed, as accursed,* every one without exception 
(comp. écri¢ av 1j, v. 10) is in the same case subject to the same curse. The 
certainty, that no other gospel but that preached by the apostle to his 
readers was the true one, cannot be more decisively confirmed. — zap’ 6 
evyyyedic. iuiv| This 8, which is not to be explained by etayyéAuov,* is simply 
that which, namely, as the context shows, the contents of the gospel ; 
“beyond that which we,” ete.’ This may mean either praeterquam, 
‘“pesides,”® or contra, ‘‘against.”* For the two meanings, see Matthiae, 
p. 1381 ; Winer, p. 377. In earlier times a dogmatic interest was involved 
in this point : the Lutherans, in order to combat tradition, laying the stress 


1See Seidler, ad Hur. El. 429; Fritzsche, 


ad Matth. p. 52; Kiihner, a@ Xen. Mem. i. 1. 
19. 

2 Comp. LXX. 1 Sam. x. 9; Ecclus. xi. 31; 
Hom. J/. xv. 203 ; Dem. 1032. 1. 

3 See Herm. a@ Viger. p. 8382; Hartung, 
Partikell. 1. p. 140 f. 

4 Hofmann. 

5 Comp. Ignatius, a@ Smyrn. 6, where it 
is said even of the angels, éav wy mieTevVowory 
eis TO alua Xpiotovd, Kakelvois Kplors eotiv, 
“‘unless they believe in the blood of Christ, 


there is judgment even to them.” 

® Schott, Flatt, Hofmann. 

7 Bernhardy, p. 259. 

8 Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, The- 
ophylact, Eras:nus, Beza,Calovius, Rambach, 
Reithm. and others. 

®So Theodoret and the older Catholics, 
Grotius, and many others; also Winer, 
Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hof- 


mann. 


CHAP Ais, 29: 1S) 


on praeterquam ; and the Catholics, to protect the same, on contra.’ The 
contra, or more exactly, the sense of specific difference, is most suitable to the 
context (see ver. 6, érepov evayyéA.). Comp. Rom. xvi. 17. [See Note XVI., 
p. 39.] —etyyyedodueda iyiv] that is, ‘““I and my companions at the 
time of your conversion” (comp. rapeAdBere, ver. 9). The emphasis, 
however, lies on zap’. —avddeua éatw] Let him be subject to the divine 
wrath and everlasting perdition (O71), the same as xardpa and ér:kardparoc, 
ili. 18; see on Rom. ix. 8. The opposite, vi. 16. To apply it? to 
the idea of excommunication subsequently expressed in the church ® by the 
word avat_ena, is contrary to the usage of the N. T. (Rom. ix. 3; 1 Cor. 
xii, 8, xvi. 22), and is besides in this passage erroneous, because even a 
false-teaching angel is supposed in the protasis. Comp., on the contrary, 
v. 10, Baorace: 75 xpiua ; 2 Thess. i. 9. See generally the thoroughly excel- 
lent discussion of Wieseler, p. 39 ff. Mark, moreover, in the use of the 
preceptive rather than the mere optative form, the expression of the apos- 
tolic éovcia, Let him be ! 

Ver. 9. Again the same curse; * but now the addition of an allusion to an 
earlier utterance of it increases still more its solemn earnestness. — d¢ zpoer- 
pyxauev| is referred by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Luther, Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the earlier exposi- 
tors, also Flatt, Winer, Matthies, Neander, to ver. 8. But in this case Paul 
would have written merely dc eipfxapev, Tadev Aéyo, OY Simply waAuy épa, as in 
Phil. iv. 4. The compound verb rpoeipixapev (Vv. 21 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3, xiii. 2 ; 
1 Thess. iv. 6) and xa? adpze point necessarily to an earlier time, in contrast to 
the present. Hence the Peschito, Jerome,’ Semler, Koppe, Borger, Riickert, 
Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, 
Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others, rightly take it as indi- 
cating the presence of the apostle among the Galatians at the time when he 
uttered this curse; comp. v. 3. We must, however, look upon this 
presence as the second and not the jirst visit; ° for the expression in the form 
of curse betrays an advanced stage of the danger, and not a merely prophylac- 
tic measure. — kai dpte TadAw Aéyw] apodosis, ‘‘so say I also now (at the 
present moment) again ;” so that rad thus glances back to the time to 
which the rpo applied. Riickert regards dc. . . Aéyw together as the protasis 
(comp. Ewald), in which case the proper apodosis, so it is in fact, before 
el ric Would be wanting. Or rather, if jc... Aéyo were the protasis, e ae imac 
. . . avadewa éorw would be the real apodosis. But why introduce at all 
such a forced departure from the separation, which presents itself so natu- 
rally, and is so full of emphasis, of é¢. . . 2éyw into protasis and apodosis ? 
The reference of zposcpjx. to an earlier time is certain enough ; and dprv, 
now, in the sense of the point of time then present, is very usual in Greek 
authors’ and in the N. T. — ei ric bac x.7.4.] Paul does not here, as in ver. 


1 See Calovius and Estius. liberately,”’ Bengel. 

2? Rosenmiller, Baumgarten-Crusius,comp. 5 Comp. Augustine, who leaves a choice 
also Grotius and Semler. between the two views. 

3 Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 270. § Hofmann. 


* “Deliberate loquitur,” ‘‘he speaks de- 7 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 18 ff. 


20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


8, again use é4v with the subjunctive, but on account of the actual occur- 
rence puts the positive ¢!,—thus giving to his utterance a climactic character, 
as in Acts v. 38 f.1— As to evayyexiveoda: with the accusative,? which does 
not occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 268. — 
rapeAaBere| often used of that which one gets through instruction.? It 
may, however, denote either to take (actively), as in 1 Cor. xv. 1 ; 1 John 
1, 11; Phil. iv. 9; or to receive (passively), as in ver. 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13; 
1 Cor. xv. 3, etal. The latter is preferable here, as a parallel to eiyyyedicdueda 
jpuiv in ver. 8. 

Ver. 10. Paul feels that the curse which he had just repeated twice 
might strike his readers as being repulsive and stern ; and in reference 
thereto he now gives an explanatory justification (yap) of the harsh language. 
[See Note XVII., p. 39.] He would not have uttered that avadeua éorw, if 
he had been concerned at present to influence men in his favor, and not 
God, etc. — dp7:] has the chief emphasis, corresponds to the apr in ver. 9, 
and is therefore to be understood, not, as it usually is,* in the wider sense of 
the period of the apostle’s Christian life generally, but® in reference to the 
present moment, as in ver. 9, just as apr: always in the N. T., corresponding 
to the Greek usage of the word, expresses the narrower idea modo, nune 
ipsum, but does not represent the wider sense of viv (ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 16; 
Matt. xxvi. 53, et a/.), which is not even the case in the passages in Lobeck, 
p- 20. Hence, often as viv in Paul’s writings covers the whole period from 
his conversion, apr: is never used in this sense, not even in 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
The latter rather singles out from the more general compass of the viv the 
present moment specially, as in the classical combination viv dptu.° Now, 
Paul would say, just now, when he is induced to write this letter by the 
Judaizing reaction against the very essence of the true and sole gospel 
which he upheld,—now, at this critical point of time—it could not possibly 
be his business to conciliate men, but God only.?—avdpdzovc] is quite 
general, and is not not to be restricted either to his opponents® or other- 
wise. [See Note XVIII, p. 40.] The category, which is pointed at, is 
negatived, and thus the generic dvpér. needed no article.* — veiw) per- 
suadeo, whether by words or otherwise. The word never has any other 
signification ; but the more precise definition of its meaning results from the 
context. Here, where that which was repulsive in the preceding curse is 
to receive explanation, and the parallel is {776 apéoxewv, and where also the 
words 7 Tov Océv must fit in with the idea of zeidw, it denotes, as often in 


1See on the passage; Luke xiii. 9; gelium praedicavimus vodis,” “‘we have 


Winer, p. 277; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 190; 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p.93 B. Comp. 
2 Cor. xii. 20, 21, pymws — pyres — py. 

2 The studied design which Bengel dis- 
covers in the alternation between vutr (ver. 
8) and wtuas (ver. 9), ‘‘evangelio aliquem 
instruere convenit insultationi falsorum 
doctorum,”’ “to instruct one in the Gospel 
is harmonious with the insolent conduct 
of the false teachers,’’ is groundless. For 
they might say just as boastingly, ‘‘ evan- 


preached the Gospel unto you.’ The 
change in the words is accidental. 

3 See Kypke, IT. p. 222. 

4 And by Wieseler also. 

5 So Bengel, de Wette, Ellicott, Hofm., 
Eadie. 

6 Plat. Polit. p. 291 B, Men. p. 85 C. 

7 Comp. Hofmann. 

8 Hofmann. 

® Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 619. 138; 
Sauppe, ad Xen. Mem. i. 4, 14. 


CHAP. I., 10. 21 


classical authors,* to win over, to coneiliate and render friendly to oneself 
(Acts xii. 20, and Kypke thereon).? Lastly, the present tense expresses, I 
am occupied with it, I make it my business.? Our explanation of eid sub- 
stantially agrees with that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Flacius, Hammond, 
Grotius, Elsner, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Wolf, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, 
and others ; also Borger, Flatt, Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, 
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald (who, however, restricts 
the reference of 7 tov Oedv, which there is nothing to limit, to the day of 
judgment), Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others. The interpreta- 
tions which differ from this, such as ‘‘ humana suadeo or docco, an divina,” 
** Do IT advise or teach things human or divine ;” * or ‘‘ swadeone secundum 
homines an secundum Deum,” ‘‘ Do I advise according to men or God,” thus 
expressing the intention and not the contents ;° or ‘‘ swadeone vobis, ut homini- 
bus credatis an ut Deo,” ‘‘DoTI advise you to believe men or God,”® are 
contrary to the meaning of the word : for rete twa always means persua- 
dere alicui, ‘‘to persuade some one,” and is not to be identified with reidew 
ze (Acts xix. 8, xxviii. 23), placing the personal accusative under the point 
of view of the thing. — 7 (yré av3paéroe apéoxervy] or do I strive to be an 
object of haman goodwill ?—not tautological, but more general than the 
preceding. The stress which lies on av¥pézore makes any saving clause on the 
part of expositors’ appear unsuitable. Even by his winning accommodation 
(1 Cor ix. 19 ff., x. 15) Paul sought not at all to please men, but rather God. 
—et ett avd porto ijpeckov x.7.x.] contains the negative answer to the 
last question. The emphasis is placed first on avdpdroc, and next on 
Xpiorov : ‘If I still please men, if I were not already beyond the pos- 
session of human favor, but were still well-pleasing to men, J should 
not be Christ’s servant.” According to de Wette, ér is intended to affirm 
nothing more than that, if the one existed, the other could no longer 
exist. But in this case érz must logically have been placed after oix. The 
truth of the proposition, ei ére «.7.2., in Which avJpézr. is not any more than 
before to be limited to Paul’s opponents (according to Holsten, even including 
the apostles at Jerusalem), rests upon the principle that no one can serve 
two masters (Matt. vi. 24), and corresponds to the ovat of the Lord Himself 
(Luke vi. 26), and to His own precedent (John vi. 41). But how decidedly, 
even at that period of the development of his apostolic consciousness, Paul 
had the full and clear conviction that he was an object, not of human good- 
will, but of human hatred and calumny, is specially evident from the Epistles 
to the Corinthians composed soon afterwards; comp., however, even 1 Thess. 
ii. 4 ff. In this he recognized a mark of the servant of God and Christ 


1 Nigelsbach zur Ilias. i. 100. 

2 Comp. especially on meidew edv, Pind. 
Ol. ii. 144; Plat. Pol. iii. p. 390 E, ii. p. 364 
C; Eur. Med. 964; also the passages from 
Josephus in Krebs. 

3 See Bernhardy, p. 370. 

4 Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Vatablus, Goma- 
rus, Cramer, Michaelis. 

® Calvin. 


6 Piscator, Pareus, Calixtus; so also in 
substance, Holsten, z. Hvang. d. Paul. u. 
Petr, p. 332 ff., and Hilgenfeld. 

7 As, for example, Schott, ‘‘de ejusmodi 
cogitari studio hominibus placendi, quod 
Deo displiceat,” “of such thought as by the 
endeavor to please men would displease 
God.” 

® Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 4. 


22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


(2 Cor, vi. 4 ff., xi. 23 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 9). The avdpdrore apéckew is the result 
of Cyreiv avdpdroie apéoxecv, and consequently means to please men, not to 
seek to please or to live to please them, as most expositors, even Riiekert, 
Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius,’ quite arbitrarily assume, although 
apart from the context the words might have this meaning.” — Xprorod dovAor 
ovk av junv| is understood by most expositors, following Chrysostom, in- 
cluding Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Paulus, Schott, Riickert, ‘‘so should I 
now be no apostle, but I should have remained a Jew, Pharisee, and perse- 
cutor of Christians ;” taking, therefore, Xpicrov dovAoc in an historical sense. 
But how feeble this idea would be, and how lacking the usual depth of the 
apostle’s thought !_ No; Xpuorov dovAoc is to be taken in its ethical character :° 
‘* Were I still well-pleasing to men, this would exclude the character of a 
servant of Christ, and I should not be such an one ; whom men misunder- 
stand, hate, persecute, revile.” As to the relation, however, of our passage 
to 1 Cor. x. 32, see Calovius, who justly remarks that in the latter passage 
the rdavra raw apéckwis meant secundum Deum et ad hominum aedificationem, 
** according to God and for the edification of men,” and not secundum auram 
et voluntatem nudam hominum, ‘‘ according to the mere favor and wish of 
men.” 

Vv. 11, 12.* Theme of the apologetic portion of the epistle. See Introd. sec. 
2. —dé] in continuance of the discourse. The way having been prepared 
for this theme in vv. 8-10, it is now formally announced for further discus- 
sion.° And after the impassioned outburst in vv. 6-10, the language 
becomes composed and calm. Now, therefore, for the first time, we find the 
address adeAgoi. [See Note XIX., p. 40.] —yvupitw dé tpuiv] but (now to enter 
more particularly on the subject of my letter) I make known to you. This 
announcement has a certain solemnity,® which is only enhanced by the fact 
that the matter must have been already known to the reader. There is no 
need to modify the sense of yrwpifw, which neither here nor in 1 Cor. xv. 1 
means monere vos volo or the like. —7ré evayyéAuov . . . bre] attraction.* — 
TO evayyedicdiv in’ éuov|] which has been announced by me, among you and 
among others ;° not to be limited to the conversion of the readers only. — 

eewekaTa av3pwrov| cannot indicate the mode of announcement, which would re- 


1 To live to please, to render oneself pleasing, 4 See Hofmann’s interpretation of i. 11-ii. 


is also Wieseler’s interpretation (comp. 
also Rom. xy. 1), who consistently under- 
stands the previous apéoxew in the same 
way. Comp. Winer and Hofmann. But 
there would thus be no motive for the 
change from ¢nT® apéoxev, “I seek to 
please,” to npeckor, ‘I pleased,’ only, which, 
according to our view, involves a very sig- 
nificant progress. Paul seeks not to please, 
and pleases not. 

2 See on 1 Cor. x. 33; and comp. avdpwmap- 
eoxos, Eph. vi. 6. 

3 Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Za- 
chariae, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
Ewald, Wieseler, and others. 


14 in his heil. Schr. N. 7.1. p. 60 ff., ed. 2. 
On the other hand, see Hilgenfeld, Kanon 
u. Kritik ad. N. T. p. 190 ff. 

51f yap were the correct reading (Hof- 
mann), it would correspond to the immedi- 
ately preceding contrast between avdpwots 
and Xprorod, confirming ver. 10, but would 
not introduce a justification of ver. 9, as 
Hofmann, arbitrarily going back beyond 
ver, 10, assumes. 

8 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 1; 1 Cor. 
xii, 3. 

7 Morus, Rosenmiiller, and others. 

8 Winer, p. 581 f. 

9 Comp. 6 kypvacw, ii. 2. 


CHAPS i512: 23 


quire us to conceive eiayyeAodév as repeated. Necessarily belonging to oi« 
éort, it is the negative modal expression of the gospel itself which was 
preached by Paul; specifying, however, not its origin,? which «avd in it- 
self never expresses,* but its qualitative relation, although this is conditioned 
by its origin (ver. 12). The gospel announced by me is not according to 
men, that is, not of such quality asit would be if it were the work of men ; it is 
not of the same nature as human wisdom, human efficiency, and the like.‘ 
Looking to the context, the view of Grotius is too narrow, ‘‘ nihil humani 
affectus admixtum habet,” ‘‘ He has no mingling of human feeling.” Bengel 
hits the mark, ‘‘non est humani census evangelium meum, ‘‘ my gospel is 
not according to the estimate of men.” 

Ver. 12. Proof of the statement, 70 etayyéAuoy . . . ok éote Kata dvBpwror. 
—ovdi yap éyo| for neither I, i.e. I, as little as the other apostles. On 
ovdé yap, for neither, which corresponds with the positive xa? yap, comp. 
Bornemann® and Hartung. The earlier expositors’ neglect both the 
signification of oidé and the emphasis on éyé, which is also overlooked 
by de Wette, ‘‘for also I have not,” etc. ; and Ewald, ‘‘I obtained it 
not at all.”* Riickert, Matthies, and Schott understand oidé only as 
if it were oi, assuming it to be used on account of the previous nega- 
tion; and see in éyé a contrast to those, quibus ipse tradiderit evan- 
gelium, ‘‘to whom he had delivered the gospel,” in which case there must 
have been aizéc instead of éy6. This remark also applies to Hofmann’s 
view, ‘‘that he himself has not received what he preached through human 
instruction.” Besides, the supposed reference of éy6 would be quite un- 
suitable, for the apostle had not at all in view a comparison with his disci- 
ples ; a comparison with the other apostles was the point agitating his mind. 
Lastly, Winer finds too much in ovdé, ‘‘ nam no ego quidem,” ‘‘ for not even I.” 
This is objectionable, not because, as Schott and Olshausen, following Riick- 
ert, assume, ovd’ éyo ydp or kai yap oid’ éy@ must in that case have been writ- 
ten, for in fact yép would have its perfectly regular position (vi. 13 ; Rom. 
viii. 7; John v. 22, vii. 5, vill. 42, et al.) ; but because ne ego quidem, ‘‘ not 
even I,” would imply the concession of a certain higher position for the other 
apostles (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9), which would not be in harmony with the 
apostle’s present train of thought, where his argument turned rather on his 
equality with them (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 1). [See Note XX., p. 40.] — apa 
avdparov] from a man, who had given it to me. Not to be confounded with 
an’ avd pdrov.? Here also, as in ver. 1, we have the contrast between dvd pwroc¢ 


1 Hofmann. 

2 Augustine, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Estius, 
Calovius, Wolf, and others. 

3 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 3. 

4 Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, 7d tTods vopous 
avtovs Tols mapaBaivovot Tas Tiwplas EXEL 
BeAtiovos Kat avpwroyv vouotétov Soxet mor 
eivat, ‘‘That the laws have punishments 
for transgressors seems to me to prove their 
origin from a better lawgiver than kar’ av- 
Ypwrov.”” Eur. Jed. 673, copwtep’ y car’ avdpa 


oupBarct(y cary, ‘‘tocompose words wiser 


thankar’ évSpa.” Soph. Aj. 747, “ Think not 
kat avdpwrov.’’ Comp. Aj. 764; Oed. Col. 604 ; 
Plat. Pol. 2. 359D. The opposite, vrép av- 
Spwrov eivar, Lucian, Vit. auct. 2. 

5 ad Xen. Symp. p. 200. 

6 Partikell. I. p. 211. 

7 Also Morus, Koppe, and others. 

8 Comp., on the contrary, Matt. xxi. 27; 
Luke xx. 8; John viii. 11. 

® See on-1 Cor, xi. 23, and Hermann, ad 
Soph. Hl, 65. ; 


24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


and ‘Io. Xpioréc. —avdrd] Viz. t5 evayyédiov Td elayyeducdév in’ Euov. — obTe 
iduddy0yv| As ovre refers only to the ov contained in the preceding oidé, and 
dé and 7é do not correspond, oive is here by no means inappropriate (as 
Riickert alleges).’ [See Note XXL, p. 40.] For neither have I received it 
from aman, nor learned it. TapédaBov denotes the receiving through com- 
munication in general (comp. ver. 9), édidaybyv the receiving specially through 
instruction duly used. — dara d? axoxazty. I. X.] The contrast to rapa 
avdparov ; Ijcov X. is therefore the genitive, not of the object (Theodoret, 
Matthies, Schott, Cremer), but of the subject,* by Jesus Christ giving to me rev- 
elation. Paul alludes to the revelations® received soon after the event at 
Damascus, and consequent therefore upon his calling, which enabled him to 
comply with it and tocome forward as a preacher of the gospel. Comp. vy. 
15, 16 ; Eph. iii. 3. The revelation referred to in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.4 cannot 
be meant; because this occurred at a subsequent period, when Paul had for 
a long time been preaching the gospel. Nor must we ®* refer it to the revela- 
tions which were imparted to him generally, including those of the later 
period, for here mention is made only of a revelation by which he received 
and learned the gospel. — How the azoxadvyc took place ° must be left unde- 
cided. It may have taken place with or without vision, in different stages, 
partly even before his baptism in the three days mentioned Acts ix. 6, 9, 
partly at and immediately after it, but not through instruction on the part 
of Ananias. The év éyoi in ver. 16 is consistent with either supposition. 
[See Note XXII., p. 40. ] 

Ver. 13. Now begins the historical proof that he was indebted for his 
gospel to the aroxd4vuc he had mentioned, and not to human communication 
and instruction. In the first place, in vv. 13, 14, he calls to their remem- 


1 See Hand, De part. ré diss. I. p. 13; Har- 
tung, Partikell. I. p. 101 f.; Buttmann, 
neutest. Gr. p. 815. Comp. on Acts xxiii. 8. 

2 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 1; Rev. i. 1. 


come to add to this fundamental fact of his 
preaching the remaining contents of the 
doctrine of salvation, partly by means of 
argument, partly by further revelation, 


3 Of which, however, the book of Acts 
gives us no account; for in Acts xxii. 17, 
Christ appeared to him not to reveal to him 
the gospel, but for the purpose vf giving a 
special instruction. Hence they are not to 
be referred to the event at Damascus itself, 
as, following Jerome and Theodoret, many 
earlier and more recent expositors (Rtick- 
ert, Usteri, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Hofmann, Wieseler) assume. The calling 
of the apostle, by which he was converted 
at Damascus, is expressly distinguished in 
ver. 16 from the divine amoxadvwar Tov viov 
év énot, so that this inward démoxdAuiis follow- 
ed the calling; the calling was the fact 
which laid the foundation for the amoxadv- 
wes (Comp. Moller on de Wette)—the histor- 
ical preliminary to it. In identifying the 
amoxdAviis Of our passage With the phenom- 
enon at Damascus, it would be. necessary 
to assume that Paul, to whom at Damascus 
the resurrection of Jesus was revealed, had 


and partly by information derived from 
others (see especially Wieseler). This idea 
is, however, inconsistent with the assurance 
of our passage, which relates without re- 
striction to the whole gospel preached by 
the apostle, consequently to the whole of 
its essential contents. The same objection 
may be specially urged against the view, 
with which Hofmann contents himself, that 
the wonderful phenomenon at Damascus 
certified to Paul’s mind the truth of the 
Christian faith, which had not been un- 
known to him before. Such a conception 
of the matter falls far short of the idea of 
the amoxaAvyis of the gospel through Christ, 
especially as the apostle refers specifically 
to his gospel. 

4 Thomas, Cornelius & Lapide, Balduin, 
and others. 

5 With Koppe, Flatt, and Schott. 

6 According to Calovius, through the Holy 
Spirit ; comp. Acts ix. 17, 


CHAP, ‘1.5, 14. 25 


brance his well-known conduct while a Jew ; for, as a persecutor of the 
Christians and a Pharisaic zealot, he could not but be the less fitted for 
human instruction in the gospel, which must, on the contrary, have come to 
him in that superhuman mode. — jxoicare| emphatically prefixed, indicates 
that what is contained in vv. 13, 14, is something already well known to 
his readers, which therefore required only to be recalled, not to be proved. 
— Hv inv avactpodyy rote év TH lovdaioug] my previous course of life in Juda- 
ism, how I formerly behaved myself asa Jew. ‘Iovdaicude is not Judaistic 
zeal and activity,’ but just simply Judaism, as his national religious condi- 
tion.” It forms the historical contrast to the present Xpioriavioude of the 
apostle.* — dvacrpoey in the sense of course of life, behavior, is found, in addi- 
tion to the N. T. (Eph. iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12, e al.) and the Apocrypha 
(Tob. iv. 14; 2 Macc. v. 8), only in later Greek, such as Polyb. iv. 82. 1.4— 
more év TG “Iovd.| a definition of time attached to ry éujy dvactpod#v, in which 
the repetition of ry was not necessary.” — dre kaW¥ brepBodijy x.7.2.] & More 
precise definition of the object of jxotcare, that I, namely, beyond measure 
persecuted, etc. On kav’ trepBodgv, the sense of which bears a superlative 
relation to o¢édpa, comp. Rom. vii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17; 
Bernhardy, p. 241. —rov Ocov] added in the painful consciousness of the 
wickedness and guilt of such doings. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9; 1 Tim. i. 13. 
— érépdour| is not to be understood de conatu, ‘‘as conative.”® Paul was then 
actually engaged in the work of destruction (Acts xxii. 4, comp. ix. 1, xxvi. 
10, 11), and therefore it is not to be understood’ merely as vastavi, depopu- 
latus sum, ‘‘I devastated, depopulated.”* Paul wished to be not a mere 
devastator, not a mere disturber,*® but a destroyer” of the church ; and as such 
he was active." Moreover, in the classic authors also rop¥eiv and répdev 
are applied * not only to things, but also to men,” in the sense of bringing to 
ruin and the like.!* 

Ver. 14. Still dependent on drv.—xai the rpoxérrew év 7H’ Tovdaicug had 
then been combined in Paul with his hostile action against Christianity, had 
kept pace with it. —’lovdaicudc, not Jewish theology, but just as in ver, 13. 
Judaism was the sphere in which he advanced further and improyed more 
than those of his age by growth in Jewish culture, in Jewish zeal for the 
law, in Jewish activity in works, etc.**— ovrmAKidrnc| one of the same age, 


®° See Luther’s translation. 
10 Nicht bloss Verstorer, sondern Zer- 


1 Matthies, ‘‘ when I was still out and out 
a Jew ;”? comp. Schott. 


2 See 2 Mace. ii. 21, viii. 1, xiv. 38; 4 Macc. 
iv. 26. 

3 Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes. 8, 10, Philad. 6. 

4 See Wetstein. 

5 Comp. Plat. Legg. iii. p. 685 D, n THs Tpotas 
Soph. O. R. 1043, tov 
Tupavvov THs Se ys maAdar more. Phil. i. 26. 
Comp. also on 1 Cor. viii. 7 and on 2 Cor. xi. 
23. 

6 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Menochius, and others. 

™With Beza, Piscator, 
Usteri, and Schott. 

§ Hom. Od. xiv. 264, aypovs répdeor, et al. 


GAwots TO SevtTepov. 


Estius, Winer, 


st6rer. 

11 Hom. JI. iv. 808, woAcas kai Tetxe’ Eropdour, 
“were laying waste cities and walls,”’ et a. 

12 Comp. Acts ix. 21. 

13 See Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 340 A; 
Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 1187; Jacobs, De. 
epigr. i. 80. 

14 Grotius, Riickert. 

15 On mpokérrew as intransitive (Luke ii. 
52; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 9, 13), very frequent in 
Polyb., Lucian, etc., comp. Jacobs, ad 
Anthol. X. p. 35; on év 7. ‘Iovd., comp. Lu- 
cian, Herm. 63,év tots padjuacr, Paras. 13, 


€v Tals TEXVALS, 


26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


occurring only here in the N. T., a word belonging to the later Greek. 
The ancient authors use #jAccdrnc.? — év r@ yéver pov] a more precise defini- 
tion of cvvyAuc. ; yévecis therefore, in conformity with the context,* to be 
understood in a national sense,* and not of the sect of the Pharisees (Paulus).® 
[See Note XXIII., p. 40. ]— repiccorépws Cnrwrie irapyov k.7.A. | amore detailed 
statement, specifying in what way the rpoéxortov . . . yévec pov found active 
expression ; ‘‘so that I,” ete. — repiccorépwe] than those roddaoi. They, too, 
were zealous for the traditions of their fathers (whether like Paul they were 
Pharisees or not); but Paul was so in a more superabundant measure for his. 
— Tv TraTpiKov ov Tapadécewy| endeavoring with zealous interest to obey, 
uphold, and assert them.® The carpixai pov rapadécecc, that is, the religious 
definitions handed down to me from my fathers (in respect to doctrine, 
ritual, asceticism, interpretation of Scripture, conduct of life, and the like), 
are the Pharisaic traditions ;’ for Paul was éapcaioc, a Pharisee (Phil. iii. 
5; Acts xxvi. 5), vid¢ dapicaiwy, ‘‘ the son of a Pharisee’”’ (Acts xxiii. 6).° 
If Paul had intended to refer to the Mosaic law, either alone® or together with 
the Pharisaic traditions,” he would have named the law either by itself or 
along with the traditions (Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3 ; 2 Macc. iv. 2) ; but by ov 
he limits the rarpixa¢ rapadécecc to the special elements resulting from his 
descent, which did not apply to those who were in different circumstances 
as to descent ; whereas the law applied to all Jews.” That Paul had been 
zealous for the /aw in general, followed as a matter of course from zpoéxorr. 
év t. Iovdaicue ; but here he is stating the specific way in which his own 
peculiar xpoxoxrtew év lovdaioug had displayed itself—his Pharisaic zealotry. 
[See Note XXIV., p. 40.] It would have been surprising if in this connec- 
tion he had omitted to mention the latter. — rarpixéc, not found elsewhere 
in the N. T., means paternal.” In this case the context alone decides 
whether the idea a patribus acceptus, ‘‘ received from the fathers” (xarpora- 
padoroc, 1 Pet. i. 18) is conveyed by it, asin this passage by mov, or not. 
The former is very frequently the case. As to the much-discussed varying 
distinction between rdrpioc, tatpixdc, and ratpgoc, comp. on Acts xxii. 3. 
Ver. 15. But when it pleased, etc.'* This denotes, of course, the free placuié 
of the divine decree, but is here conceived as an act in time, which is imme- 


®» Erasmus, Paraphr., Luther, Calvin, and 
others. 
10 Estius, Grotius, Calixtus, Morus, Koppe, 


1 Diod. Sic. i. 53? Alciphr. i. 12. 
stein. 
2 Plat. Apol. p. 33 C, and frequently. 


See Wet- 


3 Comp. ev T@ ‘Tovd, 

4 For with Helienist associates, of whom 
likewise in Jerusalem there could be no 
lack, he does not desire to compare him- 
self. 

5 Comp. Phil. iii. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 26; Rom. ix. 
3; Acts vii. 19, 

6 On the genitive of the odject, comp. 2 
Mace. iv. 2; Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3; 1 Cor. xiv. 
12; Tit. ii. 14; Plat. Prot. p. 343 A. 

7 Comp. Matt. v. 21, xv. 2; Mark vii. 3. 

8 So also Erasmus (Annot.), Beza, Calo- 
vius, de Wette, Hofmann, and others. 


Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Riickert, Schott, Ols- 
hausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, ‘‘ the law ac- 
cording to the strict rule of Pharisaism,” 
comp. Moller. 

11 Comp., as parallel, Acts xxvi. 5. 

12 Comp. LXX. Gen. 1. 8; Lev. xxii. 13; 
Ecclus. xlii. 10; 8 Esd. i. 5, 31; 4 Mace. 
xviii. 7; Plat. Zach. p. 180 E, Soph. p. 242 A; 
Isocr. Evang. p. 218, 85; Diod. Sic. i. 88; 
Polyb. i. 78. 1; Athen. xv. p. 667 F. 

13 As, for instance, Polyb. xxi. 5, 7. 

14 Comp. Luke xii. 82; 1 Cor. i. 21; Rom. 
Xv. 26; Col. i. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 8, ili. 1. 


CHAP 1 Ld: a7 


diately followed by its execution, not as from eternity.1—6 dgopicac pe éx 
KovAiac untpdc pov] who separated me, that is, in His counsel set me apart from 
other men for a special destination, from my mother’s womd ; that is, not in the 
womb ;* nor, from the time when I was in the womb ;% nor, defore I was 
born ;4 but, as soon as I had issued from the womb, from my birth. é« 
yeveryc, John ix. 1, has the same meaning. Comp. the Greek é yaorpéc, 
and the like. We must not assume a reference to Jer. i. 5,° for in that pas- 
sage there is an essentially different definition of time (mpd rov we rAdoa oe év 
kotdia k.T.A.). We may add, that this designation of God completely corre- 
sponds with Paul’s representation of his apostolic independence of men. 
What it was, to which God had separated him from his birth and had called 
him (at Damascus), is of course evident in itself and from i. 1 ; but it also. 
results from the sequel (ver. 16). It was the apostleship, which he recog- 
nized as a special proof of free and undeserved divine grace ;7 hence here 
also he adds ud rij¢ yapitog abrov.* Riickert is wrong in asserting that caAécac 
cannot refer here to the call at Damascus, but can only denote the calling to 
salvation and the apostleship in the Divine mind. In favor of this view he 
adduces the aorist, which represents the «Ajoie as previous to the eiddxycev 
aroxadipar, and also the connection of xaAécac with agopicag by means of kai. 
Both arguments are based upon the erroneous idea that the revelation of the 
gospel was coincident with the calling of the apostle. But Paul was first 
called at Damascus by the miraculous appearance of Christ, which laid hold 
of him without any detailed instruction (Phil. iii. 12), and thereafter, through 
the apocalyptic operation of God, the Son of God was revealed in him: the 
KAjowe at Damascus preceded this aroxadAvyuc 3° the former called him to the 
service, the latter furnished him with the contents, of the gospel. Comp. 
on ver. 12. Moreover, the x«Aajove is never an act in the Divine mind, but 
always an historical fact (Rom. viii. 30). This also militates against Hof- 
mann, who makes é« kocAiac untpd¢ pov belong to xaAéoac as well—a connection 
excluded by the very position of the words. And what a strange defini- 
tion of the idea conveyed by xadciv, and how completely foreign to the 
N. T., is the view of Hofmann, who makes it designate ‘‘an act execut- 
ed in the course of the formation of this man”! Moreover, our passage un- 
doubtedly implies that by the calling and revelation here spoken of the con- 
sciousness of apostleship—and that too of apostleship to the heathen—was 
divinely produced in Paul, and became clear and certain. This, however, 
does not exclude, but is, on the contrary, a divine preparation for, the fuller 





1 Beza. kaAvWat, as Hofmann, disregarding the sym- 
2 Wieseler. metrically similar construction of the two 
3 Hofmann, comp. Moller. participial statements, groundlessly asserts. 
4 Riickert. Paul knew himself to be cAnros ardatodos Sua 


5 Comp. Ps. ‘xxii. 10; Isa. xliv. 2, xlix. 1, 
5; Matt. xix. 12; Acts iii. 2, xiv. 8 (in Luke 
i. 15, where ér- is added, the thought is dif- 
ferent). 

6 Grotius, Semler, Reithmayr, and others. 

7 Rom. i. 4, xii. 3, xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10. 

8 For dia tr. yap. avtod belongs to Kadéoas 
as a modal definition of it, and not to azo- 


SedAjpatos @cov (1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1), and 
he knew that this &¢Ayua was that of the di- 
vine grace, 1 Cor. xv. 10, iii. 10; Gal. ii. 9; 
Rom. i. 5, xii. 3. 

® Hence also év éuot by no means dimin- 
ishes the importance of the external phe- 
nomenon at Damascus (as Baur and others 
contend). 


28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


development of this consciousness in its more definite aspects by means of 
experience and the further guidance of Christ and His Spirit. 

Ver. 16. ’AroxaAiwac] belongs to eidéxyoev ; but év éuoi is im my mind, in 
my consciousness, in which the Son of God was to become manifest as the 
sum and substance of knowledge (Phil. iii. 8) ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 6, év raic 
kapdiate juav, ‘‘in our hearts.”’ But év is never nota dativi, ‘‘a mark of the 
dative,” and all the passages adduced to that effect (such as 1 Cor. ix. 15, 
xiv. 11; 1 Tim. iv. 15 ; Acts iv. 12, e al.) are to be so explained that éy 
shall retain its signification ;? as must also be the casein the passages used 
to support the sense of the dativus commodi, ‘‘ dative of advantage.” Jerome, 
Pelagius, Erasmus, Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and others, interpret it through me, ‘‘ut per me, velut organum, no- 
tum redderet filium suum,” ‘‘ that through me, as an organ, He might make 
His Son known.”* But the revelation given to the apostle himself is a neces- 
sary element in the connection (ver. 12): Paul was immediately after his 
birth set apart by God, subsequently called at Damascus, and afterward pro- 
vided inwardly with the revelation of the Son of God, in order that he might 
be able outwardly to preach, etc. Others, again,® take it as ‘‘on me,” in my 
case, which is explained to mean either that the conversion appeared as a proof 
of Christ’s power, etc.,° or that the revelation had been imparted to the 
apostle as matter of fact, by means of his own experience, or, in other words, 
through his own case (Riickert).’? But the former explanation is unsuita- 
ble to the context, and the latter again depends on the erroneous identifica- 
tion of the calling of the apostle at Damascus with the revelation of the 
gospel which he received. — rév vidy airov] This is the great foundation and 
whole sum of the gospel. Comp. ver. 6 f., 1. 20. In his pre-Christian 
blindness Paul had known Christ xara capa, 2 Cor. v. 16. — ebayyeAifopac] 
Present tense ;* for the fulfilment of this destination which had even then 
been assigned to him by God ° was, at the time when the epistle was writ- 
ten, still in course of execution.” Thus, in opposition to his adversaries, the 
continuous divine right and obligation of this apostolic action is asserted. 
— iv roic édvecw] among the heathen peoples.’ The fact that Paul always 
began his work of conversion with the Jews resident among the Gentiles, 


1 See Chrysostom, tis amoxadvews kata- 
Aautovans avtov Thy Wuyx7r, ‘‘ His revelation 
enlightening the soul.’”? Comp. Oecum. (eis 
Tov €ow avipwrov THs yvwoews evicnsaons), 
Theophylact, Beza, and most expositors. 
Calvin, Koppe, Flatt, and others, wrongly 
hold that it stands for the mere dative. 
Comp. Bengel. 

2 Winer, p. 204. 

3 See Bernhardy, p. 212. 

4 Erasmus, Paraphr. 

5 Comp. Hilgenfeld in loc. and in his 
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 164: Paul regarded his 
Christian and apostolic life and working as 
arevelation of Christ in his person. Simi- 
lar is the view taken by Paul in Hilgenfeld’s 


Zeitschr. 1863, p. 208. 

6 Peter Lombard, Seb. Schmidt. 

7 Comp. 1 John iv. 9, ébavepwdy H ayarn Tod 
cod ev nutv. 

8 Which, according to Hofmann, is intend- 
ed to designate the purpose from the stand- 
point of the present time in which it is being 
realized. This retrospective interpretation 
is purely imaginary, by no means suits even 
Plat Legg. p. 653 D, and in our passage is 
opposed to the context (see ver. 17). 

*) Acts ix. 15, xxiii 15, scxyiiee 

10 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 618. 

11 See Acts ix. 15, xxii, 21, xxvi. 17, 18; 
Eph. iii. 8; Rom. xi. 13. 


CHAP. I., 16. 29 


was not inconsistent with his destination as the apostle of the Gentiles ; this, 
indeed, was the way of calling adopted by the Gentile apostle in accordance 
with that destination (see Rom. i. 16).’— eiPéoc] does not belong exclu- 
sively either to the negative * or to the affirmative part of the apodosis = but 
as the two parts themselves are inseparably associated, it belongs to the 
whole sentence ot rpocavedéuyv . . . adda arqAtov cic Apaf., ‘‘ Immediately 
I took not counsel with flesh and blood, nor did I make a journey to Jeru- 
salem, but,” etc. He expresses that which he had done immediately after he 
had received the revelation, by way of antithesis, negatively and positively ; 
for it was his object most assiduously to dispel the notion that he had re- 
ceived human instruction. Jerome, in order to defend the apostle against 
Porphyry’s unjust reproach of presumption and fickleness, connects eintéwe 
with evayyeAifouar ; as recently Credner 4 has also done. No objection can 
be taken to the emphasis of the adverb at the end of the sentence ;° but the 
whole strength of the proof lies not in what Paul was immediately to do, but in 
what he had immediately done.* We must, moreover, allow cintéuc to retain 
its usual strict signification, and not, with Hofmann,’ substitute the sense 
of ‘‘immediately then,” ‘‘ just at once” (‘‘ not at a subsequent time only’’), as 
if Paul had written 767 é« rére or the like. Observe, too, on comparing the 
book of Acts, that the purposely added eiéuc still does not exclude a brief 
ministry in Damascus previous to the journey to Arabia (Acts ix. 20), the 
more especially as his main object was to “how that he had gone from 
Damascus to no other place than Arabia, +had not until three years later 
gone to Jerusalem. To make special m: \ of his brief working in Da- 
mascus, ¢efore his departure to Arabia, ign to the logical scope of 
his statement. — ov rpocavedénunv] I addr. ommunication to flesh and 
blood, namely, in order to learn the opi ‘thers as to this revelation 
which I had received, and to obtain fr mstruction, guidance, and 
advice. mpdéc conveys the notion of dire ot, as Beza and Bengel as- 
sert,® the idea praeterea, ‘‘ besides,”® —c c| that is, to weak men, in 


| 


1 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 37. 

2 Hilgenfeld, Hofmann. 

8 Winer. 

4 Finl. I. 1, p. 308. 

§ Kiihner, II. p. 625; Bornemann, ad Xen. 
Anab. ii. 6. 9; Stallbaum, ad Phaedr. p. 256 
E. 

8 “*Notatur subita habilitas apostoli,” 
“the sudden fitness of the apostle is de- 
noted,” Bengel. 

7 Who invents the hypothesis, that the 
apostle had been reproached with having 
only subsequently taken up the ground that he 
did not apply to men in order to get advice 
from them. Hofmann strangely appeals to 
evSus, John xiii. 82, and even to Xen. Cyr. 1. 
6. 20, where the idea, ‘* not at a subsequent 
time only,” is indeed conveyed by é« madiov, 
“from a child,” but not at all by evdvs in 
itself. Even in passages such as those in 


Dorvill. ad Charit. pp. 298, 326, cvdvs, like 
evtews constantly, means immediately, on the 
spot. 

8 Comp. also Usteri and Jatho. 

®So, too, Mirecker in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1866, p. 534, ‘no further communication.” It 
isnot, however, apparent to what ofher avar- 
iSeodar this is conceived to refer. See 
Diod. Sic. xvii. 116, tots pdvreor mpocava- 
Pémevos wept Tov onpecov, ‘* Having conferred 
with the diviners concerning the sign,”’ 
Lucian, Jup. Trag. 1, éu0i mpocavadov, AdBe 
pe avpBovdov tovwyv, ‘confer with me; 
make me an adviser of your tasks,’ in con- 
trast to the preceding kataydvas cavtTe 
Aadets, “‘ you speak apart, by yourself,” 
Nicetas, Angel. Comnen. ii. 5. Comp. C. F. 
A. Fritzsche in Pritzschior. Opusc. p. 204. 
Just so mpocavahépev, 2 Mace. xi. 36; Tob. 
xii. 15; Polyb. xxxi. 19. 4, xvii. 9. 10. 


30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


contrast to the experience of God’s working.’ Eph. vi. 12 is also analogous,? 
As the apostle was concerned simply to show that he was not av8pwrodidakroe, 
‘*taught of man,” it is wholly unsuitable in this connection to refer capri x. 
ai. to himself,’ and unsuitable, as regards half the reference, to apply it to 
others and the apostle himself.4 He is speaking simply of the consultation 
of others,° and that quite generally : ‘‘ having received this divine revelation, 
I did not take weak men as my counsellors.” In the continuation of the 
discourse towards its climax the apostles are specially brought into promi- 
nence as members of this category, and therefore capxi x. aiv. is not ® at once 
to be referred to the apostles themselves, although they also are included 
in it. 

Ver. 17. Neither went I away (from Damascus) to Jerusalem, unto those 
who were apostles before me; but I went avay into Arabia. So according to 
Lachmann’s reading ; see the critical notes. Tove mpd éuod axoor. is written 
by Paul in the consciousness of his full equality of apostolic rank (beginning 
from Damascus), in which no precedence, save that of seniority, pertained to 
the older apostles.’?—ei¢ ’ApaBiav] It is possible that some special per- 
sonal reason, unknown to us, induced him to choose this particular country. 
The region was heathen, containing, however, many Jews of the Diaspora 
(Acts ii. 11). [See Note XXV., p. 40seq.] This journey, which is to be 
looked upon not as having for its object a quiet preparation,® but as a first, 
certainly fervent experim: , of extraneous ministry,? and which was of 
short duration,’ is not men ¢ in Acts, Perhaps not known to Luke at 


; 


gospel, as it is exhibited in th¢ Episiles to 
the Galatians and Romans, must have taken 
its shape gradually, and by means of a long 
process of thought amidst the widening of 
experience; but even in the absence of such 
a developed system he might make a com- 
mencement of his ministry, and might 
preach the Son of Godas the latter had been 
directly revealed in him by divine agency. 
Thiersch arbitrarily considers (Kirche in 
apostol. Zeitalt. p. 116) that he desired to find 
protection with Aretas. It isthe view also of 
Acts, that Paul immediately after his con- 
version followed the divine guidance, and 


1 See on Matt. xvi. 17. 

2 Comp. the rabbinical BY ~ h 
and blood,” (Lightfoot, on} 

3 Koppe, Ewald. 

4 Winer, Matthies, Schot’ ,; 
hausen. 

5 Beza, Grotius, Calovir 
Morus, Rosenmiiller, Borge 
garten-Crusius, de Wet 2: 
Wieseler, Hofmann, Eadie, hers. 

6 With Chrysostom, Jer Theophy- 
lact, Oecumenius, and others. 

7 On the twice-employed emphatic am7nA- 
dvo, comp. Rom. yili. 15; Heb. xii. 18 ff. ; 


Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 137. 

8 Schrader, Kohler, Riickert, Schott. 

® Our passage bears testimony in favor of 
this view by evdéws . . . amnAdov following 
immediately on tva evayy. avtov év Tots Edve- 
ow, Hence Holsten’s view (die Bedeutung 
des Wortes capt im N. T. p. 25; ueber Inh. u. 
Gedankeng. ad. Gal. Br. p. 17 f.; also zum 
Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 269 f.), that Paul, 
‘“ purposely tearing himself away for three 
years from the atmosphere of the national 
spirit at Jerusalem,” had gone to Arabia, 
‘in order to reconcile the new revelation with 
the old by meditating on the religious records 
of his people,’ is quite opposed to the con- 
text. Certainly the system of the apostle’s 


did not postpone his beginning to preach 
till the expiration of three years. Accord- 
ing to Acts, he preached immediately, even 
in Damascus, ix. 20; comp. xxvi. 19f. See, 
besides, on Rom. Jnivod. § 1. 

10J,, Cappellus, Benson, Witsius, Eichhorn, 
Hemsen, and others, also Anger, Rat. temp. 
p. 122, and Laurent, hold the opinion that 
Paul spent almost the whole three years 
(ver. 18) in Arabia, because the Jews at 
Damascus would not have tolerated his re- 
maining there so long. But in our igno- 
rance of the precise state of things in 
Damascus, this argument is of too uncer- 
tain a character, especially as Acts ix. 22, 
comp. with ver. 23, ws 5é émAnp. numépat ikavat, 


CHAP. 1, 18. dL 


all, it is most probably to be placed in the period of the ixavai juépar, Acts 
ix. 28,—an inexact statement of the interval between the conversion and 
the journey to Jerusalem, which betrays, on the part of Luke, only a vague 
and inadequate knowledge of the chronology of this period.’ Paul mentions 
the journey kere, because he had to show—following the continuous thread 
of the history—that, in the first period after his conversion, he had not 
been anywhere where he could have received instruction from the apostles.— 
radu bréotpepa] xd2u, used on the hypothesis that the locality of the call- 
ing and revelation mentioned was well known to his readers, refers to the 
notion of coming conveyed in izéorp.? 

Ver. 18. "Exevra] After that, namely, after my second sojourn in Damas- 
cus—whence he escaped, as is related Acts ix. 24 f.; 2 Cor. xi. 82f. The 
more precise statement of time then follows in the words pera ér7 tpia (comp. 
li. 1), in which the terminus a quo is taken to be cither his conversion’ or his 
return from Arabia.* 'The former is to be preferred, as is suggested by the 
context in oidé ar7Aov cic ‘IepoodAvua. . 








- meta éty Tpia avqHAVov sic Tepoood. 
Comp. also on ii. 1. — avy or eic Tepoo.] This is (contrary to Jerome’s view) 
the jirst journey to Jerusalem, not omitted in the Acts,* but mentioned in ix. 
26. The quite untenable arguments of Koéhler® against this identity are 
refuted by Anger.” It must, however, be conceded that the account in 
Acts must receive a partial correction from our passage® [see Note XXVI., 
p. 41] ; a necessity, however, which is exay >rated by Baur, Hilgenfeld, 
and Zeller, and is attributed to intentional eration of the history on the 
part of the author of Acts, it being suppose, hat the latter was unwilling 
to co the very thing which Paul in our pfoye, : wishes, namely, to bring 
out his independence of the original apost yo ¢ ‘ut this consciousness of 
independence is not to be exaggerated, asi of g 1ad felt himself ‘“alienin 
the very centre of his being” from Peter hem j »pjoae Kydav] in order to 
make the personal acquaintance of Cephas ; nv. q y, refore, in order to obtain 


~fla. « 


“when many days were fulfilled,” points 
to a relatively longer working in Damas- 
cus. And if Paul had labored almost 
three years, or, according to Ewald, about 
two years, in Arabia, and that at the very 
beginning of his apostleship, we could 
hardly imagine that Luke should not have 
known of this ministry in Arabia, or, if he 
knew of it, that he should not have men- 
tioned it, for Paul never stayed so long any- 
where else. except perhaps at Ephesus. It 
may indeed be alleged that Luke purposely 
kept silence as to the journey to Arabia, 
because it would have proved the inde- 
pendent action of the apostle to the Gen- 
tiles (Hilgenfeld, Zeller) ; but this view sets 
out from the premise that the book of Acts 
is a partisan treatise, wanting in historical 
honesty ; and it moreover assumes-—-what 
without that premise is not to be assumed— 
that the author was acquainted with our 
epistle. If he was acquainted with it, the 


intentir “ortion of portions of his his- 
tory, wh. is alleged he allowed him- 
self to mai would be the more shameless, 
and indeed foolish. 

1 See on Acts ix. 19 ff. 

2 Comp. Acts xviii. 21; Hom. Od. viii. 301, 
avtis Umootpéas, ‘haying turned him back 
again,” et al. ; Eur. Ale. 1022; Bornemann, 
ad Cyrop. iii. 8. 60; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 
li. 2, 4. 

* As bv most expositors, including Winer, 
Fritzsche, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, 
Olshausen, Baumgarten Crusius, de Wette, 
Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, 
Reithmayr, Caspari. 

4 Marsh, Koppe, Borger. 

5 Laurent. 

8 Abfassungszeit, p. 1 f. 

7 Rat. temp. p. 124 f. 

§ See on Actsix, 26 f. 

® Holsten. 


82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


instruction. But the position of Peter as coryphacus’ in the apostolic 
circle, especially urged by the Catholics,? appears at all events from this 
passage to have been then known to Paul and acknowledged by him. 
‘Ioropeiv, coram cognoscere, ‘‘to know personally,” which does not occur else- 
where in the N. T., is found in this sense applied to a person also in Joseph. 
Bell. vi. 1. 8, ovk aonjpuog Sv avg, bv éy@ war’ éxeivov iorépyoa tov ré2enov, ‘* being 
not an unknown man, whom I in that war knew personally,” Antt. i. 11. 4, 
viii. 2. 5 ; frequently also in the Clementines. It is often used by Greek 
authors? in reference to things, as tyv méAw, THY yopav, Tyv vdcov K.T.A.4 
Bengel, moreover, well says : ‘‘ grave verbum ut de re magna ; non dixit 
idetv (as in John xii. 21) sed ioropyoa,” ‘‘an important word for a great 
subject ; he did not say ideiv, but ioropioa.”° — kai éxéwewa xpic aitév®] xpéc, 
with, conveys the direction of the intercourse implied in éxéu.’ — juépag dexa- 
névte] For the historical cause why he did not remain longer, see Acts ix. 29, 
xxii. 17ff. The intention, however, which induced Paul to specify the time, 
is manifest from the whole connection,—that the reader might judge for him- 
self whether so short a sojourn, the object of which was to become personally 
acquainted for the first time with Peter, could have been also intended for 
the further object of receiving evangelic instruction, especially when Paul 
had himself been preaching the gospel already so long (for three years). 
This intention is denied by Riickert, because the period of fifteen days was 
not so short but that during it Paul might have been instructed by Peter. 
But Paul is giving an historical account ; and in doing this the mention of a 
time so short could not but be welcome to him for his purpose, without his 
wishing to give it forth as a stringent proof. This, notwithstanding what 
Paul emphatically adds in ver. 19, it certainly was not, as is evident even 
from the high representative repute of Peter.* [See Note XXVII., p. 41.] 
But the briefer his stay at that time, devoted to making the personal ac- 
quaintance of Peter, had been, the more it told against the notion of his 
having received instruction, although Paul naturally could not, and would 
not, represent this time as shorter than it had really been. Riickert’s arbitrary 
conjecture is therefore quite superfluous, that Paul mentions the fifteen 
days on account of the false allegation of his opponents that he had been 
first brought to Christianity by the apostles, or had, at any rate, spent a long 
time with them and as their disciple, but that he sought ungratefully and 
arrogantly either to conceal or deny these facts. According to Holsten, 
Peter and James were the representatives of the érepov evayy., who in conse- 
quence could not have exerted any influence on Paul’s Gentile gospel. But 
this they were not at all. See onii. 1 ff. and on Acts xv. 

8 Hofmann is of opinion that Paul desired 
his readers to understand that he could not 
have journeyed to Jerusalem in order to 
ask the opinion and advice of the “* apostolic 


body” there. Asif Peter and James could 
not have been ‘‘apostolic body’? enough ! 


1 Theodoret. 

2 See Windischmann andReithmayr. 

3 Comp. also the passages from Josephus 
in Krebs, Qdss. p. 318. 

4 See Wetstein and Kypke. 

5 Comp. Chrysostom. 


6 Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. 

7 Comp. Matt. xxvi.55; John i.1; and the 
passages in Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 202. 
Comp. Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 653. 


Taking refuge in this way behind the dis- 
tinction between apostles and the apostolic 
body was foreign to Paul. 


CHAPY re 19! 33 


Ver. 19. Dut another of the apostles saw I not, save James the brother of the 
Lord. Thus this James is distinguished indeed from the circle of the twelve 
(1 Cor. xy. 5) to which Peter belonged, but yet is included in the number of 
the apostles, namely in the wider sense (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5, xv. 7) ; which 
explains the merely supplementary mention of this apostle.*— érepov is not 
qualitative here, as in ver. 6, but stands in contrast to the one who is named, 
Peter. In addition to the latter he saw not one more of the apostles, except 
only that he saw the apostle in the wider sense of the term—James the 
brother of the Lord (who indeed belonged to the church at Jerusalem as its 
president), —a fact which conscientiously he will not leave unmentioned.— 
On the point that James the brother of the Lord was not James the son of 
Alphaeus,—as, following Clemens Alex., Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, 
Chrysostom, and Theodoret, most modern scholars, and among the exposi- 
tors of the epistle Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jatho, Hof- 
mann, Reithmayr, maintain,—but a real brother of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 35; 
Mark vi. 3), the son of Mary, called James the Just,” who, having been a 
Nazarite from his birth, and having become a believer after the resurrection 
of Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 7 ; Acts i. 14), attained to very high apostolic reputa- 
tion among the Jewish Christians (ii. 9), and was the most influential pres- 
byter of the church at Jerusalem,*® see on Acts xii. 17 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5 ; Huther 
on Ep. of James, Introd. § 1; Laurent, Neutest. Stud. p. 175 ff.* By the 
more precise designation, tov adeAgdv tov Kupiov, he is distinguished not only 
from the elder James, the brother of John,° but also from James the son of 
Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve.* The whole figment of the identity 
of this James with the son of Alphaeus is a result of the unscriptural (Matt. 
i. 25; Luke ii. 7) although ecclesiastically orthodox” belief (extending 
beyond the birth of Christ) in the perpetual virginity of Mary.® [See 
Note XXVIII, p. 41.] We may add that the statement, that Paul at this 
time saw only Peter and James at Jerusalem, is not at variance with the 
inexact expression tov¢ aroardéiove, Acts ix. 27, but is an authentic historical 
definition of it, of a more precise character. [See Note XXIX., p. 41.] 


1 After et ny We must supply not cidov 
merely (as Grotius, Fritzsche ad Matth. 
p. 482, Winer, Bleek in Stud. u. Krit. 1836, 
p. 1059, Wieseler), but, as the context re- 
quires, eiSov tov amdartodov. 

2 Heges. in Hus. ii. 23. 

3 Wieseler also justly recognizes here the 
actual brother of Jesus, but holds the 
James, who is named in ii. 9, 12 (and Acts 
Sil. 17, xv. 18,215 1 Cor. xv. 7) as the head 
of the Jewish Christians, not to be identi- 
eal with this brother of the Lord, but to be 
the apostle James the son of Alphaeus; af- 
firming that it was the latter also who was 
called 6 Sixcatos, ‘‘the just.”” See, however, 
on ii. 9. The Gospel of the Hebrews, in 
Jerome, Vir. il]. 2, puts James the Just 
among the apostles who partook of the 
last Supper with Jesus, but nevertheless 


3 


represents him as a brother of the Lord, for 
it makes him to be addressed by the Risen 
One as “‘ frater mi,” ‘““my brother.’’ Wiese- 
ler, indeed, understands jfrater mi, ‘‘my 
brother,”’ in a spiritual sense, as in John xx. 
17, Matt. xxviii. 10. But, just because the 
designation of a James as adeAdds Tod Kuptov, 
“the Lord’s brother’’ is so solemn, this in- 
terpretation appears arbitrary ; nor do we 
find that anywhere in the Gospels Jesus 
addressed the disciples as brethren. 

4 [Also, Sieffert, article James, Herzog’s 
Real-Encyel., 2d ed., vol. vi.] 

5 Hofmann and others. 

6 Comp. Victorinus, ‘‘ cum autem fratrem 
dixit, apostolum negavit,” ** but when he said 
‘brother,’ he denied ‘ apostle.’ ”” 

7 Form. Cone. p. 767. 

8 Comp. on Matt. xii. 46; 1 Cor. ix. 5. 


34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Ver. 20. Not a parenthesis, but, at the conclusion of what Paul has just 
related of that first sojourn of his at Jerusalem after his conversion (namely, 
that he had travelled thither to make the acquaintance of Cephas, had re- 
mained with him fifteen days, and had seen none of the other apostles 
besides, only James the brother of the Lord), an affirmation by oath that in 
this he had spoken the pure truth. The importance of the facts he had just 
related for his object—to prove his apostolic independence—induced him to 
make this sacred assurance. For if Paul had ever been a disciple of the 
apostles, he must have become so then, when he was with the apostles at 
Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion ; but not only had he been 
there with another object in view, and for so few days, but, besides Peter, 
he had met with James only. The reference to all that had been said 
from ver. 12,' or at least to vv. 15-19,’ is precluded by the fact that ére:rain 
ver. 18 begins a fresh section of the report (comp. ver. 21, i. 1), beyond 
which there is no reason to go back. —The sentence is so constructed that 4 
62 ypddo buiv stands emphatically by itself as an anacoluthon ; and before érz, 
that, we have again to supply ypdgu, But what I write to you—bvehold in the 
sight of God I write, that I lie not ; that is, in respect to what I write to you, 
I write, I assure you before the face of God,* that I lie not.* Schott takes 
bre as since, ‘ coram Deo scribo, siquidem non mentior,” ‘‘in the sight of God 
I write, since I lie not,” whereby 4 dé yp. tu. does not appear as an anacolu- 
thon. But this siguidem non mentior, ‘‘ since I lie not,” wouid be very flat ; 
whereas the anacoluthon of the prefixed relative sentence is precisely in keep- 
ing with the fervency of the language.® The completely parallel proteste- 
tion also, 6 Oed¢... oldev. . . bre oF etdouas,° is quite unfavorable to the ex- 
planation of 67: as siguidem. To supply with Bengel, Paulus, and Riickert 
(comp. Jerome), an éori after Ocov (671, that), does not make the construction 
casier ;7 on the contrary, it is arbitrary, and yields an unprecedented mode 
of expression. 

Ver. 21. After this stay of fifteen days in Jerusalem (érevta, comp. ver. 
18), I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia ; and consequently was 
again far enough away from the seat of the apostles !— 7jc Zupiac] As it is 
said in Acts ix. 30 that Paul was accompanied from Jerusalem to Caesarea, 
it is assumed by most modern expositors : ‘‘ Syriae eam partem dicit, cui 
Phoenices nomen fuit,” ‘‘ He is speaking of that part of Syria which had the 
name of Phoenicia,” Winer.’ This view runs entirely counter to the design 
of the apostle. For here his main concern was to bring out his compara- 
tively wide separation from Judaea, as it had occurred in his actual history ; 
the whole context (comp. ver. 22) shows that it was so, and therefore the 
reader could only understand rice Spice as meaning Syria proper (with 


1 Calvin, Koppe, Winer, Matthies. note thereon. 
2 Hofmann. 62Cor. xi. 81; comp. Rom. i. 9; 2 Cor. 
8 )9 9995, so that Ihave God present 3. 33. 
ri devin Be 7 Rickert. 
as witness. 


8 So also Koppe, Riickert, Usteri, Mat- 
thies, Schott. Comp. Matt. iy. 24; Acts 
> O.4b Bh 


4 Comp. Buttmann, newt. G7. p. 338. 
5 Comp. Matt. x. 14; Luke xxi. 6, and the 


CHAP: E.; 223 35 


Antioch as its capital). It could not in the least occur to him to think of 
Phoenicia,‘ the more especially as alongside of rij¢ Lupiac Cilicia, which 
borders on Syria proper, is immediately named (comp. Acts xv. 238, 41 ; 
Plin. v. 22, xviii. 30). Anappeal is also wrongly made to Matt. iv. 24? and 
Acts xxi. 3.5. The relation of our passage to Acts ix. 30 is this : On leaving 
Jerusalem, Paul desired to visit Syria and Cilicia ; he was accordingly con- 
ducted by the Christians as far as the first stage, Caesarea,* and thence he 
went on by land to Syria and Cilicia. Comp. on Acts ix. 30.—or what 
object he visited Syria and Cilicia, he does not state ; but for this very 
reason, and in accordance with ver. 5, it cannot be doubted that he preached 
the gospel there. Tarsus was certainly the central point of this ministry ; 
it was at Tarsus that Barnabas sought and found him (Acts xi. 25). 

Ver. 22. But I was so completely a stranger to the land of Judaea, that at 
the time of my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia I was personally unknown to 
the churches, etc. These statements (vv. 22-24) likewise go to prove that 
Paul had not been a disciple of the apostles, which is indeed the object aimed 
at in the whole of the context. Asa pupil of the apostles, he would have 
remained in communication with Jerusalem ; and proceeding thence, he 
would first of all have exercised his ministry in the churches of Judaea, and 
have become well known tothem.® Others, inconsistently with the context, 
suppose that Paul desired to refute the allegation that he had been a learner 
from the churches of Judaea,® or that he himself had taught judaistically in 
Judaea,’ or that he had visited Syria and Cilicia as the deputy of the churches 
of Judaea.* — 76 rpooarw| as regards the (my) countenance, that is, personally. 


1 Which eyen Wieseler, though not un- 
derstanding it alone to be referred to, in- 
cludes, 

2 Where, in the language of hyperbole, a 
very large district—namely, the whole prov- 
ince of Syria, of which Judaea and Sama- 
ria formed portions—is meant to be desig- 
nated. 

3 Where likewise the Roman province is 
intended, and that only loosely and indefi- 
nitely with reference to the coast district. 
For any one sailing from Patara and pass- 
ing in front of Cyprus to the right has the 
Syrian coast before him towards the east, 
and is sailing towardsit. Thus indefinitely, 
as was suggested by the popular view and 
report, Luke relates, Acts xxi. 3, éwAéouev 
els Xupiay, “we sailed into Syria,’ without 
meaning by the kat xarnxdnuev eis Tupor, 
“and landed at Tyre,” that follows to make 
this Zvpiav, “Syria,” equivalent to Phoenicia. 
For instance, a man might say, ‘‘ We sailed 
towards Denmark and landed at Gliick- 
stadt,’ without intending it to be inferred 
that Denmark is equivalent to Holstein. 

4The Roman capital of Judaea, not 
Caesarea Philippi. 

5 According to Hofmann, the end at 
which Paul aims in ver. 22 f. is conveyed 


by wat ed0&agov «.7.A. in ver. 24, so that vv. 
22, 23 are only related to this as the prota- 
sis to the apodosis. This ideais at variance 
with the independent and important na- 
ture of the two affirmations in vy. 22, 23; 
if Paul had intended to give them so sub- 
ordinate a position as that which Hofmann 
supposes, he would have done it by a 
participial construction (ayvootvtes 6& ... 
wLovov S€ akovortes, OTL K.T.A., Cd0EaCov K.T.A.), 
perhaps also with the addition of cacrep, or 
in some other marked way. In the form 
in which the apostle has written it, his re- 
port introduced by €émecra in ver. 21 is com- 
posed of propositions quite as independent 
as those following ezecra in ver. 18, and vy. 
£2, 23 cannot be intended merely to intro- 
duce ver. 24. Hofmann is therefore the 
more incorrect in asserting that Paul, from 
ver, 21 onwards, is not continuing the 
proof of his apostolic independence in con- 
tradistinction to the other apostles, but is 
exhibiting the harmony of his preaching with 
the faith of the mother-church at Jerusalem 
and its apostles. 

6 Oecumenius, Gomarus, Olshausen. 

7 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius; 
comp. Usteri. 

® Michaelis. 


36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 17.—Traic¢ éxxAyoiare tHe ’Iovd.] This is meant to refer to 
the churches out of Jerusalem, consequently in the ’Iovdaia y7, John iii. 22. 
For that he was known to the chruch in the capital is not only a matter of 
inference from his pre-Christian activity, but is certain from that fifteen 
days’ visit (ver. 18), and is attested by Acts ix. 26-30.’ 

Vv. 23, 24. Aé] places pévov axobovreg joav in correlation to juny ayvoobpevoc 
T@ spooorw ; it is not, however, to be understood as a mere repetition of 
the former dé (Hofmann), for it introduces another? subject.* The maseu- 
line refers to the persons of whom those éxxAyoia: consisted.* The participle 
with joav, however, does not stand for the simple imperfect (Luther renders 
quite incorrectly, ‘‘they had heard”’), but prominence is given to the pred- 
icate as the main point.° The clause expresses the sole relation in which 
they were to Paul; they were simply in a position to hear.® — éri 6 dtokwv 
nuac Tore kK.T.A.] Ore is explained most simply, not by a supposed transition 
from the indirect to the direct form,’ but as the recitativwm,® the use of which 
by Paul is certain not merely in quotations of Scripture, but also in other 
cases (Rom. ili. 8; 2 Thess. ili. 10). 
in vividness. In 6 didkwv jude, yuac applies to the Christians generally ; the 
joyful information came to them from Christian lips (partly from inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem, partly perhaps directly from Syrians and Cilicians). The 
present participle does not stand for the aorist (Grotius), but quite substan- 
tivally : our (former) persecutor.? —riv xictiv] never means Christian doc- 
trine,® not even in Acts vi.7, where faith in Christ is conceived as the authority 
commanding submission (comp. on Rom. i. 5) ; it denotes the faith —re- 
garded, however, objectively... He preaches the faith (in the Son of God, 
ver. 16), which formerly he destroyed. On the latter point Estius justly 
remarks, ‘‘ quia Christi fidelibus fidem extorquere persequendo nitebatur,” 
‘“because by his persecution he was endeavoring to wrest faith from believ- 
ers.””? —év éuoi] does not mean propter me,* in support of which an appeal 
was erroneously made to Eph. 1v. 1 e¢al.: for év, used with persons, is never 
on account of (Winer, p. 363) ; but it means, ‘‘they praised God on me,” so 
that their praise of God was based on me as the vehicle and instrument of 
the divine grace and efficacy (1 Cor. xv. 10). God made Himself known 
to them by my case, and so they praised Him 3; éAov yap 76 Kaz’ éué, dyot, THe 


Moreover, the statement thus gains 


1 Neither in Acts ix. 26-80 nor in Acts a rumor among them,’’ Erasmus. Comp. 


xxvi. 19 f. (see on these passages) is there 
any such inconsistency with the passage 
before us, as has been urged against the 
historical character of the Acts, especially 
by Hilgenfeld, Baur, and Zeller. 

2 Hofmann appeals to Eur. Jph. 7. 1367. 
But in this, as in the other passages quoted 

aby Hartung, I. p. 169, the well-known repe- 

tition of the same word with &€ occurs. 

3’ Baeumlein, Partik. p. 97. 

4See Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 39; Winer, 
p. 586. 

5 See Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 1179. 

5 ** Rumor apud illos erat,’ ‘‘ there was 


Vulgate: ‘“‘tantum autem auditum habe- 
dant,” “ but they only had the tidings.” 

7So most expositors, including Riickert 
and Wieseler. 

8 Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
Hofmann. 

* See Winer, p. 331; Bremi, a@ Dem. adv. 
Aphob. 17. 

10 Beza, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rtickert, 
and others. 

11 Comp. on iil. 2, 23. 

12 Comp. ver. 13. 

13 As was generally assumed before 
Winer. 


NOTES. 37 


yapitoc Fv Tov Oeov, ‘‘ For as to me, all, he says, was of the grace of God,” 
Oecumenius.' It was not, however, without a purpose, but with a just feel- 
ing of satisfaction, that Paul added kai éddfalov év éuoi tov Oedv ; for this im- 
pression, which Paul then made on the churches in Judaea, stood in start- 
ling contrast to the hateful proceedings against him of the Judaizers in Ga- 
latia.—Mark further,? how ver. 23 rests on the legitimate assumption that 
Paul preached in substance no other gospel than that which those churches 
had received from Jerusalem, although they were not yet instructed in the 
special peculiarities of his preaching ; as, in fact, the antagonism between 
the Pauline teaching and Judaism did not become a matter of public inter- 
est until later (Acts xv. 1). 


Notres By AMERICAN Eprtor. 


I. Ver. 1. otk an’ avpdrwv ovd? Ov’ avOparov. 


«When Meyer asserts a distinction between a causa remotior and a causa 
medians, this is not accurate, since the subject treated is not the two causes for 
the one act of the call, but the authorization of the office, and the call of the 
person”’ (Sieffert). ‘‘ There are few points more characteristic of the apostle’s 
style than his varied but accurate use of prepositions, especially of two or 
more in the same, or immediately contiguous, clauses’’ (Ellicott). 


II. Ver. 1. avdpadrov. 


On the other hand, Eadie: ‘‘ The change to the singular forms a designed 
antithesis to the following clause, while it denies the intervention of human 
agency in any form and to any extent.’’ So also Sieffert. Meyer is supported 
by Brenz, who, however, loses sight of the distinction in the prepositions — viz., 
Per Christum adhuc humanam vitam in terris agentem, while by the same inter- 
pretation the ovk az’ avOpézav becomes A duodecim Apostolis, “ By the twelve 
apostles.”’ 


Ill. Ver. 1. av§parov. 


The statement requires qualification. Instead of saying: ‘It was not a 
man,” etc., the author himself would not dissent from the better interpre- 
tation of Calovius : ovK yAdc avOpeéroc. The participation by the entire divine- 
human person of divine majesty, honor, and dominion does not demand the 
limitation of a subordination. As tothe chief passage quoted (1 Cor. xv. 28) the 
explanation of Philippi is in point (Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. 379): ‘‘ That 
after the attainment of its goal, the Son of God surrenders His place of pre- 
eminence as the Head and Leader of humanity, and with respect to the 
human race returns to His original co-ordination with the Father.” 


IV. Ver. 1. Geov marpoc. 


Eadie: ‘‘ The name is probably inclusive of all these relations.” 


1Comp. John xvii. 10; Ecclus. xlvii. 6. Lex. Soph. I. p. 598. 
See generally Bernhardy, p. 210; Ellendt, 2 In opposition to Holstein and others. 


38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


V. Ver. 1. Oeov rarpoc. 


Here Meyer’s subordinationism again appears. The climax, however, is to 
be retained. For while in the Trinity ‘‘none is before and after other ;” yet 
with respect to the order of their subsistence, as declared when it is said that 
one emanates or proceeds from the other, such distinction is correct. Not 
then “‘ from the Higher to the Highest,” with respect to actual diginity, authority, 
or age, but with regard to their order of working in the economy of grace. 
The idea here is also: from the incarnate Son to the unincarnate Father ; from 
the God-man to Him who is God and not man; from the Mediator to Him 
with whom he mediates. 


VI. Ver. 1. tov éyeipavtoc abrov Ex vexpdv, 
Luther based this on Rom. iy. 25. 


VilieVierd 


For the grace and peace here mentioned are in direct opposition to the legal 
righteousness of the Jews. 


VIII. Ver. 4. aidvoc tov éreotéroc. 


Sieffert protests against this interpretation, and maintains that aidv is not 
applicable to the period of the world preceding the Parousia, and is never so 
used. As to éveotdc, as a perf. part., it may designate what, although having 
entered for a longer or shorter period, still extends, with its consequences, into 
the present, hence the present ; or more seldom it may mean that which ar- 
nounces itselfas threatening. In the latter sense, it occurs in N. T., 1 Cor. vii. 
26; 2 Thess. ii. 2. The former meaning, present, it has very frequently in 
profane Greek, and in the N. T. at Rom. viii. 38 ; 1 Cor. iii. 22, vii. 26 ; Heb. 
ix. 9, and here. For as Rom. viii. 38 contrasts ta éveotéra with ra péAdovra, 
so here the aidév évestdéc is in manifest antithesis to aidv péAAwv, Eph. i. 24 ' 
(Matt. xii. 32; Heb. vi. 3), and is therefore the same as what Paul elsewhere 
terms 6 aidv 6uvtoc, Rom, xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 6, 8, iii. 18 ; or 6 vvv Kaipéc, 
Rom. viii. 38 ; or 6 aiwy row Kocuov TobTov, Eph. ii. 2. With this Alford and Eadie 
concur, and to it Ellicott inclines. 


IX. Ver. 4. 6mwe éSéAnrat. 

Sieffert here again dissents. ‘*As mostly in the LXX. and always in the N. T. 
(Acts vii. 10, 34, xii. 11, xxiii. 27, xxvi. 17) to liberate from a power. Asa 
further end of the atoning death of Christ it designates as the final statement 
our deliverance from the power wherewith the present age of the world subjects 
us to its evil influences, consequently a moral operation, as in 2 Cor. v. 15; 
Eph. v. 26; Tit. ii. 14. This, with essential correctness, has been the inter- 
pretation of nearly all expositors since Chrysostom, although some in modern 
times, entirely against the connection, think chiefly (de Wette, Meyer, Eadie) 
or alone (Weiss, Bibl. Theol., § 80) of deliverance from misery, punishment, and 
danger.”’ 

X. Ver. 6. ottw Tayéwe. 

‘«‘ Probably the apostle had no precise time in his reference, The unexpected- 

ness of the apostasy appears to be his prominent element of rebuke ” (Eadie). 


NOTES. 39 


“Jn the N. T.rayéwe always stands without the specification of a terminus a 
quo; hence, with the exception of the passage, in which, in combination with 
a future idea, it includes a temporal reference to the present (1 Cor. iv. 19; 
Phil. ii. 19, 24; 2 Tim. iv. 9) in an absolute sense (Luke xiv. 21, xvi. 6; 
John xi. 31 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22), so also here the more for the reason 
that the verb yerarifecre in the present designates the still progressive devel- 
opment of the apostasy ’’ (Sieffert). 


XI. Ver. 6. amd rod Kadécartoc, 


Regarding the dz6 Tov Kadécavroc as referring to God, the remark of Brenz is 
worthy of note, that to turn from God is therefore, as the argument here shows, 
not necessarily to become an atheist, or to lapse into heathenism, but simply 
to hold that ‘‘ to attain forgiveness of sins and salvation through faith in Christ 
is not sufficient, and that they must be merited also by the works of the law.” 


XII. Ver. 7. érepoc. 


“‘Hven in Matt. xi. 3, adduced by Ellicott to show that érepoc does not 
always keep its distinctive meaning, it may signify not simply another indi- 
vidual, but one different in position and function” (Eadie). 


XIII. Ver. 7. revéc eicw ol tapdocortec. 


The tivéc is not without a strain of contempt (Paraeus, Eadie). Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 
lex: 
XIV. Ver. 8. etc. 


Estius, de Wette, Olshausen, Conybeare, regard 7jeic used by enallage for éyw. 
Cf. 2 Cor, x. 2-16. Lightfoot, on the contrary: “St. Paul never seems to use 
the plural when speaking of himself alone.’’ Luther: «‘I and my brethren, 
Timothy, Titus, and as many as with me teach Christ purely.” Ellicott main- 
tains that whether there is an enallage or not must be determined from the 
context ; and that while here there is none, yet it may be found in 1 Thess. 
Wye 


XV. Ver. 8. é& ovpavod. 


The é£ ovpavod is in distinction from a fallen angel (Olshausen, Eadie), 


XVI. Ver. 8. zap’ 6 einyyedc dueba, 


On the contrary, Lightfoot : ‘St. Paul is here asserting the oneness, the in- 
tegrity of his gospel. It will not brook any rival. It will not suffer any foreign 
admixture. The idea of ‘contrariety,’ therefore, is alien to the general bearing 
of the passage, though independently of the context the preposition might well 
have this meaning.’’ Alford correctly observes that the preposition really 
includes both ideas. 


XVII. Ver. 10. 


This explanation is referred by Sieffert not to the curse twice pronounced, but 
to the fact that what had been previously uttered in an indefinite and general 
way, is not repeated with reference to particular persons. 


40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


XVIII. Ver. 10. adpre ydp avOparove. 


Sieffert seeks to reconcile both views : ‘* With special reference to his oppo- 
nents, although expressed generally.” 


XIX. Ver. 11. adeAdoi. 


«Still dear to him, in spite of their begun aberration, as in ili, 15, iv. 12, 
v. 13, vi. 1” (Eadie). 
XX. Ver. 12. oddé yap eyo. 


Sieffert at some length argues that Meyer’s statement that the interpretation 
of oidé yap, as neque enim, is inconsistent with emphasis on the éya, is incorrect, 
He attaches to it a conjunctive force, and derives the antithetical idea from 
v.11. That the airéc is unnecessary, as Meyer states, is sufficiently disproved by 
the solitary eyé in 1 Cor. xi. 23. Ellicott’s interpretation impresses us most by 
extending the subjects of the antithesis even beyond the apostles—viz., ‘‘I, as 
little as any others, whether ypiorodidaktor or dvOpwrodidaxrot.”” 


XXI. Ver. 12. otre édudayOnv. 


The oidé belongs to the whole sentence; the otre connects its parts. See 
Winer’s N. T. Grammar, § 55, 6. : 


XXII. Ver. 12. dv’ dmoxadspeoc, «.1.2. 


Sieffert regards the period here specified too narrow, as it may have covered 
the entire time between his call at Damascus and his undertaking the work of 
apostle to the Gentiles, with which he concludes this review of his lite in 
vy. 21-23. 


XXII. Ver. 14. év te yéver pov. 


«« An accidental proof that he is addressing Gentile converts” (Lightfoot). 


XXIV. Ver. 14. mepicootépwc Cydwrye, K.7.A. 


‘©We cannot agree with Meyer, followed by Alford, Ellicott, and others, in 
saying that the adjective and pronoun limit these traditions to the sect of the 
Pharisees, Paul being dapicaioc, vide dapioaiov. We rather think, with Wieseler, 
that the reference must be as wide as the phrase év r@ yévev’’ (Lightfoot). 


XXYV. Ver. 17. «cic ’ApaBiav. 


The place, the object, and the length of time of the visit to Arabia are alike 
uncertain. For the indefinite limits of the term Arabia, see especially Cony- 
beare and Howson, Vol. I., 96 sqq. Many, among them Sieffert, locate this visit 
in a region neighboring Damascus—Arabia Deserta ; others fix it in Arabia 
Petraea ; still others, in Arabia Felix. As to the object, Sieffert dissents from 
Meyer, on the ground, that not until ver. 21 sqq. do we find the record of the 
beginning of his missionary activity, and that the eiféac does not limit the 
evayyéAwpuat, as Meyer intimates. Luther’s view harmonizes with that of Meyer : 
‘* What else would he have done than preach Christ.” But in the absence of all 
evidence to this effect in Acts, the probabilities incline to its being for a season 


NOTES. 41 


of quiet preparation in the desert for his great work. As Neander, however, 
remarks (Planting and Training of Christian Church, E. T., p. 93): ‘Either view 
equally suits the antithesis in this passage, that Paul did not go up to Jerusa- 
lem in order to make his appearance under the sanction of those who were 
apostles before him.” Cf. Schaff’s Hist. of Apostolic Church, p. 236; Farrar’s 
Lifeand Work of St. Paul, chap. xi. Kitto (Bible Illustrations) adopts the hypoth- 
esis of a retreat from the heat and insalubrity of Damascus during the summer 
season. 


XXVI. Ver. 18. peta étn Tpia. 


The argument for the necessity of this partial correction presented in com- 
mentary on Acts ix. 26 are insufficient. The interval of three years need not 
have been three full years, but, like the three days of our Lord’s abode with 
the dead, parts of three years, amounting to little more than a full year. The 
argument Meyer draws from the distrust of the disciples rests partially on 
the unproved hypothesis that Paul had spent the interval in Arabia in preach- 
ing. He concedes that ‘‘ the distrust may in some measure be explained from a 
long retirement in Arabia.’”’ For a harmonizing of the two accounts see Excur- 
sus A of the volume of the Handy Commentary (Sanday) on Galatians. 


XXVIT. Ver. 18. ‘Hyuépac dekarévre. 


«While the fifteen days were amply sufficient for the communication of par- 
ticular historical details which Paul did not regard essential to his gospel, they 
were actually too short for Paul, after having for three years developed inde- 
pendently in his Christian convictions, to have been advised in spiritual depend- 
ence by Peter” (Sieffert). 


XXVIII. Ver. 20. tov adeAgdv Tov kvpiov. 


It is surprising that such interpretation should be given the language of the 
Form. Concord., which does contain it even by remotest implication. See 
Miiller’s edition, p. 679, § 24; English translation (Jacobs), p. 628, § 24. Meyer 
has evidently in mind the Latin translation of the Smalcald Articles, Miller, 
p- 299, whose rendering, however, does not make the perpetuity of Mary’s vir- 
ginity confessional. On the Lord’s brethren, see the Excursus of Lightfoot. 


XXIX,. Ver. 20. érepov** ovk eidov, «.7.2. 


‘*The intention is to show, not asin v. 18, that he has not learned the 
gospel of the apostles, but that he had not received a formal commission to 
preach the gospel : as this would have had to proceed from the entire body of 
apostles” (Sieffert).” 


42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


CHAR PER, al. 


Ver. 5. oi¢ otdé] is wanting in D* Clar.* Germ. codd. Lat. in Jerome and 
Sedul., Ir. Tert. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Primas. Claudius antissidor.1 Con- 
demned by Seml., Griesb., Koppe, Dav. Schulz, But the omission is much too 
weakly attested, and arose simply from dé in ver. 4 being understood antithet- 
ically, and from the belief, induced by the remembrance of the apostle’s prin- 
ciple of accommodation, that it was necessary to find here an analogue to the 
circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3) ; oddé stood in the way of this, and with 
it, on account of the construction, oi¢ was also omitted. This oi¢ was wanting 
at most only in manuscripts of the It. (see Reiche, p. 12), and ought not to 
have been rejected by Grot., Morus, and Michael. — Ver. 8. cai éuoi] With 
Lachm. and Tisch., read, according to preponderating testimony, kapoi. — 
Ver. 9. ’IdxwBoc xai Kynoéc] DEF G, It., and several Fathers, have Ilérpog kai 
*IdxwBoc. A transposition according to rank.?—év, which is wanting in Elz. 
and Tisch. (bracketed by Lachm.), is to be deleted, according to BF GHK 
L &*, min. vss. and Fathers. Inserted on account of the dé which follows. — 
Ver. 11. Here, and also in ver. 14, Kygdc¢ and Kngd is the correct reading ac- 
cording to preponderating evidence. Comp. oni. 18. The very ancient fiction 
(see the exegetical note) that it is not the Apostle Peter who is here spoken of, 
testifies also to the originality of the Hebrew name. — Ver. 12. 7A§ov| B D* F 
G 8, 45, 73, codd. It., read #29ev. So Lachm.* Comp. Orig. : eA@dvrog ’ laxeGov. 
An ancient clerical error after ver, 11. — Ver. 14. The position of the words xai 
ovk (Lachm., and Tisch. ody) “Iovdaixae Ge is to be adopted, with Lachm., fol- 
lowing decisive testimony. No doubt kai ov« ’Iovdaixo¢ is wanting in Clar. 
Germ. Ambrosiast. Sedul. Agapet. ; but this evidence is much too weak to in- 
duce us (with Seml. and Schott) to pronounce the words a gloss, especially as 
their omission might very easily be occasioned by the similar terminations of 
the two adverbs. — 7c] Elz. Tisch. read 7/, in opposition to decisive testimony. 
— The evidence is also decisive against the omission of dé, ver. 16 (Elz.), which 
was caused by eldérec being understood as the definition of what precedes, 
with which view dé was not compatible. The omission was facilitated by the 
fact of a lesson beginning with eidérec. — Ver. 18. Instead of cuviornu read, 
with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., cvrvictdve. — Ver. 20. Tod viod tod Oeod] 
Lachm. reads Tov @cod kai Xpiorov, according to B D* F G, It. But most prob- 
ably this reading arose from the writer passing on immediately from the first 
rod to the second, and thus writing rov Orov only ; and, as the sequel did not 
harmonize with this, ca? Xpictov was afterwards added. If, as Schott thinks, 
tov Ocov x, Xpictov was written because God and Christ are mentioned in vv. 
19, 20, the original rov viod tov Ocov would have been turned into rov Oeov k, 


1 Jerome, Sedul., Primas, have the ois, 3 Who (Praef. p. xii.) conjectures as to 
but not the ovde, this reading that t.vi should be read instead 
2 A. omits cai Kydbas. of Tuas. 


CHORE OT Mile 43 


viov aitod. If, however, tov Orov x. Xpicrov had been the original text, there 
would have been no reason whatever for altering this into ov vivi r, Ocov. 


ConTENTs.—Paul continues the historical proof of his full apostolic in- 
dependence. On his second visit to Jerusalem, fourteen years after, he had 
laid his gospel before those in repute, and had been, not instructed by 
them, but formally acknowledged as an apostle ordained by God to the 
Gentiles (vv. 1-10). And when Peter had come to Antioch, so far was 
Paul from giving up his apostolic independence, that, on the contrary, he 
withstood Peter openly on account of a hypocritical line of conduct, by 
which Christian freedom was imperilled (vv. 11-21). 

Ver. 1. Onvv. 1-10, seeC. F. A. Fritzsche in Friteschior. Opuse. p. 158 ff ; 
Elwert, Progr. Annott. in Gal. ii. 1-10, ete., 1852; Reiche, Comm. 
- Crit. p. 1 ff. On ver. 1, see Stélting, Beitrdge 2. Hveg. d. Paul. Briefe, 
1869, p. 155 ff. [Schwegler, Nachap. Zettalt. I. p. 116 sqq. Baur, Paulus, 
2d ed. I. p. 119 sqq. Zeiler, Apostelge. p. 216 sqq. Neander, Gesch. d. 
Pflanz., 4th ed. p. 208 sqq., American translation, p. 204 sqq. Lechler, 
Ap. u. Nachap. Zeitalt. I. 116 sqq. Ritschl, Althath. k. 1857, p. 128 sqq. 
Trip, Paul. nach, d. Apostelgesch. p. 75 sqq. Oecrtel, Paul. in d. Apostelg. p. 
226 sqq. Ebrard, w. Krit. d. evang. Gesch. 3d ed. 1868, p. 878 sqq. 
Lipsius, Apostel-convent in Schenkel’s Bibl. Lex. 1869. Overbeck, Apostel 
geschichte, 1870, p. 216 sqq. Pfleiderer, Pauwlinism, 1873, p. 500 sqq. 
Weizsiicker, Apostelkonzil, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1873, p. 191 sqq. K. 

Schmidt, Apostel-Konvent in Herzog’s Realencycl. 20 ed. 1877. Keim, Aus. d. 
Urehr. 1878, p. 64 sqq. W. Grimm, Der Apostelkonvent in theol. Stud. u. 
Krit., p. 405 sqq. Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church, 249 sqq. 
Schaff’s Church History, I. p. 341 sqq. Conybeare and Howson’s Life 
and Epistles of St. Paul, I. 223]. —éreta] thereafter, namely, after my so- 
journ in Syria and Cilicia ; correlative to the érecra in i. 21, and also in i. 
18. *Ere:ra joins the statement to what is narrated immediately before. 
Therefore not: after the journey to Jerusalem, i. 18.'— dca dexatecodpwv 
érav| interjectis quatuordecim annis, after an interval of fourteen years.? The 
length of this period quite accords with the systematic object of the apostle, 
inasmuch as he had already, up to the time of this journey, labored for so 
many years entirely on his own footing and independently of the original 
apostles, that this very fact could not but put an end to any suspicion of 
his being a disciple of these apostles.* Following Oeder* and Rambach, 


1 Wieseler. 

2Comp. Polyb. xxii. 26. 22, 6” érav tpiay ; 
Acts xxiv. 17. 

3 As to the use of 6:4, which is based on 
the idea that the time intervening from the 
starting-point to the event in question is 
traversed when the event arrives (comp. 
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856), see generally 
Bernhardy, p. 285; Kriiger, § 68. 22. 3; 
Winer, p. 336; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 50, and 
in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 162 f. ; Herod. iv. 1, 
amobnunoavtTas OKTw kK. eiKoot ETEA Kal dia Xpovov 


tocovrTov (after so long an interval) catidyvras 
k.T.A. 3 Deut. ix. 11, dca recoapaxovTa nuepov, 
“at the end of forty days and forty nights” 

. . €OwkE KUPLOS esol Tas SVO TAaKas ; JOSeph. 
Antt. iv. 8.12. Comp. the well-known 6a 
xpovov, Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 8.1; dv 
ai@vos, Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1003 ; 
6va pakpov, Thue. vi. 15. 3; d:’ €rovs, Lucian, 
Paras. 15; 60 yjuépwv, Mark ii. 1, and the 
like ; also 4 Mace. xiii. 20. 

4In Wolf. 


44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Theile,? Paulus and Schott have understood dia as within, ‘‘ during the 14 
years I have now been a Christian ;” or, as Stélting, acceding to this ex- 
planation, gives to it the more definite sense, ‘‘ during a space of time which 
has lasted 14 years from my conversion, and is now, at the time I am writing 
this epistle, finished.”” But against this view may be urged the grammatical 
objection that did is never used by Greek authors with respect to duration 
of time, except when the action extends throughout the whole time,’ cither 
continuously, as Mark xiv. 538, or at recurring intervals, as Acts 1. 3.5 Even 
the passages which are appealed to, Acts v. 19, xvi. 9, xvii. 10, xxiii. 31, 
admit the rendering of dud tHe vuxtd¢ as throughout the night, without devi- 
ation from the common linguistic usage.* Moreover, how unintelligibly 
Paul would have expressed himself, if, without giving the slightest inti- 
mation of it,* he had meant the present duration of his standing as a Chris- 
tian! Lastly, how entirely idle and objectless in itself would be such a 
specification of time! For that Paul could only speak of the journeys 
which he made as a Christian to Jerusalem, was self-evident ; but whether 
at the time when he wrote the epistle his life as a Christian had lasted 14 
years, or longer, or shorter, was a point of no importance for the main ob- 
ject of the passage, and the whole statement as to the time would be with- 
out any motive in harmony with the context. — From what point has Paul 
reckoned the 14 years? The answer, From the ascension of Christ,* must at 
once be excluded as quite opposed to the context. Usually, however, the 
conversion of the apostle is taken as the terminus a quo,’ an appeal being 
made to the analogy of i. 18. Thus the three years of i. 18 would be again 
included in the fourteen years. But waa and the dvd, indicating the in- 
terval which in the meantime had elapsed, point rather to the jirst journey 
to Jerusalem as the terminus a quo. The radav points back to the jirst jour- 
ney, and so did dexateos. érov presents itself most naturally as the period in- 
tervening between the first journey and this daw. If Paul had again 
written erd, as in i. 18, we might have inferred from the intentional iden- 
tity of expression the identity also of the starting-point ; but since he has 
here chosen the word dé not elsewhere employed by him in this sense (after 
an interval of fourteen years), the relation or this dia to ra/v leads us to 
take the first journey to Jerusalem as the starting-point of the reckoning. 
This is the reckoning adopted by Jerome, Chrysostom on ver. 11, Luther,* 


1In Winer’s Neue krit. Jour. VIIL. p. 175. 

2 Valekenaer, ad Herod. vi. 12; Ast, ad 
Plat. de Leg. p. 399. 

3 See Fritzschior. Opuse. l.c. 

4See on these passages the Commentary 
on Acts. There is no cause for accusing 
(with Fritzsche) Luke of an improper devi- 
ation from the Greek usus loguendi. Comp. 
on 6a vuktos, Thue. ii, 4. 1; Xen. Anab. iv. 6. 
22. On the Homeric da vixra, during the 
night, see Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 222, 
ed. 3. 

5 Possibly by é& ob év Xprore eiue, “from 
when I am in Christ,’”’ or in some other 


way. 

6 Chronic. Euseb., Peter Lombard, Lud. 
Cappellus, Paulus. 

7 So Olshausen, Anger, Matthies, Schott, 
Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, 
Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Ewald, apost. Zeit. p.55, 
Stilting, Eadie. 

8In the Commentary of 1519 (Opp. Jena 
1612, I. p. 386 B), ‘‘ Post annos 14, quibus si 
annos tres, quos supra memorayit, adjunx- 
eris, jam 17 aut 18 annos eum praedicasse 
invenies, antequam conferre  voluerit,”’ 
“* After 14 years, and if to these you add the 
three which he mentioned above, you will 


CHAP bis le 45 


Ussher, Clericus, Lightfoot, Bengel, Stroth,’ Morus, Keil, Koppe, Borger, 
Hug, Mynster, Credner, Hemsen, Winer, Schrader, Riickert, Usteri, Zeller, 
Reiche, Bleek, and others, as also by Hofmann, who, however, labors under 
an erroneous view as to the whole aim of the section beginning with i. 21.? 
— dexateccdpwv| emphatically placed before irév (differently in i. 18), in or- 
der to denote the long interval.* — radw avéByv sic ‘Tepoo. | Paul can mean by 
this no other than his second * journey to Jerusalem, and he says that be- 
tween his first and his renewed (7dAvy) visit to it a period of 14 years had 
elapsed, during which he had not been there. If Paul had meant a third 
journey, and had kept silence as to the second, he would have furnished his 
opponents, to whom he desired to prove that he was not a disciple of the 
apostles, with weapons against himself ; and the suspicion of intentionally 
incomplete enumeration would have rested on him justly, so far as his ad- 
versaries were concerned. Indeed, even if on occasion of a second visit to 
Jerusalem, here passed over, he had not come at all into close contact with 
the apostles (and how highly improbable this would be in itself !), he would 
have been the less likely to have omitted it, as, in this very character of a 
journey which had had nothing to do with any sort of instruction by the 
apostles,° it would have been of the greatest importance for his object, in 
opposition to the suspicions of his opponents.° To have kept silence as to 
this journey would have cut the sinews of his whole historically apologetic 
demonstration, which he had entered upon in i. 13 and still continues from 
i. 21 (though Hofmann thinks otherwise).* This purely exegetical ground 
is quite decisive in favor of the view that Paul here speaks of his second 
journey to Jerusalem ;° and considered by itself, therefore, our passage pre- 


find that he had been preaching 17 or 18 
years already before he wished to confer.” 
Even with fis reckoning, his conversion 
still remains ‘“‘the great event by which 
Paul measures for himself all Christian 
time”? (Ewald); for the whole reckoning 
begins at i. 18 from this event as its starting- 
point. 

1Jn the Repert. fiir bibl. u. 
IV. p. 41. 

2 See on i. 22. 

3 Comp. Herod. /.¢. 

4 Very correctly put in the Chron. Fuseb., 
© eime madtv, SyAovoTL ETEpa EeaTiv avaBacrs 
airy, ‘‘in that he says again, it is manifest 
that this is another journey.” 4 

5 Comp. i. 18. 

© Wieseler’s objection that Paul, accord- 
ing to our view of his historical argument, 
would also have left unmentioned the jour- 
ney spoken of in Acts xviii. 22, whereby 
the reasoning above would fall to the 
ground as nimium probans, *‘ proving too 
much,” is incorrect. For if he had shown 
that up to the apostolic council (see the sequel) 
he could not have received the instruction 
of the apostles, histask of proof was com- 


morgenl. Lit, 


pletely solved ; because on occasion of his 
presence at that council he received formal 
acknowledgment and sanction as the apos- 
tle to the Gentiles. If up to that time he 
had not been a disciple of the apostles, now, 
when he had received in an official way the 
fullest acknowledgment as an independent 
apostle, there could no longer be any dis- 
cussion as to his having at some subsequent 
date procured apostolic instruction in Je- 
rusalem. It would therefore have been 
purely unmeaning, and even absurd, to have 
continued the history of his journeys to Je- 
rusalem beyond the date of the apostolic 
council. But up to that date he could not 
omit any journey, without rendering his 
historical deduction nugatory as a proof. 

7 Comp. also Bleek, Beitr. p. 55. 

8 Bloch, Chronotax. p. 67 f., and Schott 
find wo journeys mentioned in ver. 1: the 
former obtains them from waaw (after 14 
years I made the second journey to Jerusa- 
lem, undertaken with Barnabas) ; and the 
latter brings them out thus: ‘intra 14 an- 
nos iterata vice adscendi Hierosolymas, 
cum Barnaba quidem (Act. xi. 30), posthac 
(Act. xv.) assumto etiam Tito,” ‘‘ The go- 


46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


sents no difficulty at all. The difficulty only arises when we compare it 
with Acts. According to the latter, the second journey (Acts xi. 30, xii. 25) 
is that which Paul made with Barnabas in the year 44 in order to eonvey 
pecuniary assistance to Judaea ; hence many hold our journey as identical 
with that related in Acts xi. 30, xii. 25. So Tertullian c. Mare. i. 20, 
Chron. Huseb., Calvin,’ Keil (Opuse. p. 160, and in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 
68), Gabler (neutest. theol. Journ. II. 2, p. 210 ff.), Rosenmiiller, Siiskind (in 
Bengel’s Archiv. I. 1, p. 157 ff.), Bertholdt, Kuinoel (ad Act. p. xxv.), 
Heinrichs (ad Act. p. 59), Tychsen (on Koppe, p. 149), Niemeyer (de temp. 
quo ep. ad Gal. conser. sit, Gott. 1827), Paulus, Guericke (Beitr. p. 80 ff.), 
Kiichler (de anno, quo Paul. ad sacra Chr. convers. est, Lips. 1828, p. 27 f£.), 
Flatt, Fritzsche, Béttger, Stélting. So also Caspari (geograph. chronol. 
Hinl. in d. Leb. Jesu, 1869). But the chronology, through the 14 years, 
is decisively opposed to this view. For as the year 44 a.p. or 797 v.c. is 
the established date of the journey in question,* these 14 years with the ad- 
dition of the three years (i. 18) would carry us back to the year 27 a.p. ! 
Among the defenders of this view, Béttger has indeed turned dexareccapwv 
into teccdpwr ; but how little he is justified in this, see below. Fritzsche, 
on the other hand, has endeavored to bring out the 14 years, by supposing 
the reckoning of Luke iii. 1 to begin from the year of the joint regency of 
Tiberius, that is, the year 765 v.c., as, following Ussher, has been 
done by Clericus, Lardner, and others,* and now also by Wieseler.* Itis 
assumed, consequently, that Christ commenced His ministry in 779, and 
was crucified in 781 ; that Paul became a Christian at the beginning of 783, 
and that 14 years later, in 797, the journey in question to Jerusalem took 
place. But against the assumption that the 14 years are to be reckoned 
from Paul's conversion, see above. Besides, the year of the conversion 
cannot, for other chronological reasons, be put back beyond the year 35 A.D., 
that is, 788 u.c.° Lastly, the hypothesis, that Luke in iii. 1 did not reckon 
from the actual commencement of the reign of Tiberius, is nothing but a 
forced expedient based on extraneous chronological combinations, and find- 
ing no support at all in the plain words of Luke himself,® The opinion, 


ing up to Jerusalem having been repeat- 
ed within 14 years, with Barnabas in- 
deed (Acts xi. 30), and afterwards Titus 
also having been taken.’ Both views are 
introduced into the passage inconsistently 
with the text. For according to Bloch’s ex- 
planation, Paul must have spoken previ- 
ously of a journey made with Barnabas; 
and in Schott’s interpretation not only is 
éva wrongly understood (see above), but it 
would be necessary at least that instead of 
ovumapad, kai Titov the text should run, eira 
5€ cuumapad. x. T. Nevertheless Lange, 
apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 99 f., has again resorted 
to the evasion that rad is to be referred to 
peta Bapy. and presupposes an earlier jour- 
ney already made with Barnabas (Acts xi.) 
1 Among the older expositors, J. T. Major 


is also named as in favor of this view, whose 
Annotata ad Acta Ap. Jen. 1647, 8vo, are 
quoted by Gabler and Winer. But in the 
second edition of Major’s Annotata, which 
appeared after his death, Jena 1670, 4to, 
Major (p. 410 ff.) pronounces decidedly for 
the view which holds the journey men- 
tioned in Gal. ii. 1 to be identical with that 
in Acts xv. 

2 See Introd. to Acis. 

3 See on Luke iii. 1. 

4In Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. p. 547 ff , and 
especially in his Beitr. 2. Wiirdigung d. 
Evang. 1869, p. 177 

5 See on Acts, Introd. 

6 See further, in opposition to it, Anger, 
vat. temp. p. 14 f., and z. Chronol. d. Leh- 
ramtes Chr. 1. 


CHAP; 112, i: 47 


therefore, that the journey Gal. ii. 1 is identical with that mentioned in 
Acts xi., must be rejected ; and we must, on the other hand, assume that 
in point of fact those expositors have arrived at the correct conclusion who 
consider it as the same which, according to Acts xv., was undertaken by 
Paul and Barnabas to the apostolic conference.’ This result is, however, to 
be based in the first instance not on a comparison of the historical references 
contained in Gal. ii. and Acts xv., but on dia dexatecodpwv érav 3 and the his- 
torical references of Acts xv. afterwards serve merely as a partial, although 
very material, confirmation. For the point of view, from which the journey 
is brought forward in our passage, is one so special and subjective, that it 
cannot present itself in the connected objectively historical narrative of Acts, 
whether we take it in connection with Acts xi. or Acts xv. By the search 
for points of agreement and of difference, with the view of thereby arriving 
at a decision, far too much room is left for argument pro and contra, and con- 
sequently for the play of subjective influences, to reach any certain result. 
I. Thus in support of the identity of the journey Gal. ii. 1 with that of 
Acts xi. xii., it is argued’—(1.) That the journey follows on the sojourn in 
Cilicia and Syria (i. 21, ii. 1; comp. Actsix. 30, xi. 25 ff.). But why should 
not Paul, in the ézevra, ii. 1, have also mentally included his first missionary 
journey (to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, Acts xiii. xiv.) as 
preceding, seeing that he made this journey from Antioch and after its com- 
pletion again abode in Antioch for a considerable time, and seeing that his 
object made it important not so much to write a special history of his labors, 
as to show at what time he had first come into closer official connection with 
the apostles, in order to make it plain that he had not learnt from them ? 
(2.) That it is probable that Paul soon after the beginning of his labors as 
the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. i. 23; Acts xi. 25 f. ; comp. Acts xv. 23, 
ix. 30) expounded his system of teaching at Jerusalem, and laid it before the 
apostles for their opinion. But this argument proves too much, since it is 
evident from i. 16 that Paul commenced the exercise of his vocation as an 
apostle to the Gentiles immediately after his conversion ; so that, even if 
the 14 years be reckoned from the conversion, there still remains this long 
period of 14 years during which Paul allowed this alleged requirement to 
be unsatisfied. According to our interpretation of ii. 1, this period is in- 
creased from 14 to 17 years ; but, if Paul had taught 14 years without the 
approbation of the apostles, he may just as well have done so for 17 years. 


1 So Irenaeus, adv. haer. iii. 13, Theodoret, 
Jerome, Baronius, Cornelius & -Lapide, 
Pearson, and most of the older expositors, 
Semler, Koppe, Stroth, Vogel (in Gabler’s 
Journ. fiir auserl. theol. Lit. I. 2, p. 249 ff.), 
Haselaar, Borger, Schmidt (Hind. I. p. 192 
and in the Analect. III. 1), Eichhorn, Hug, 
Winer, Hemsen, Feilmoser, Hermann (de P. 
ep.ad Gal. tribus prim. capp., Lips. 1832), 
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Anger, 
Schneckenburger, Neander, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Leke- 
busch, Elwert, Lechler (post. u. nachapost. 


Zeitalt. p. 894 ff.), Thiersch, Reuss, Reiche, 
Ewald, Ritschl, Bleek, Ellicott, Hofmann, 
Laurent, Holsten, Trip, Oertel, Lipsius, 
Pfleiderer, Weizsiicker, K. Schmidt, Keim, 
Lightfoot, Eadie, and others. Riickert does 
not come to a decision, but (in his Com- 
mentary and in the ereget. Mag. I. 1, p. 118 
ff.) denies the identity of our journey with 
that related in Acts xi. xii., and leaves it a 
matter of doubt whether the journey men- 
tioned in Acts xy. or that in xviii. 22 is the 
one intended. 
2 See Fritzsche, J.c. p. 227. 


48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


(3). That the sanction given to Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles 
(ii. 9) must have been consequent on the journey mentioned in Acts xi. xil., 
because otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have set them apart (Acts xiii. 
2 f.) as apostles to the Gentiles. But might not the ordination of the two to 
be teachers of the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 2) have taken place previously, and the 
formal acknowledgment of this destination on the part of the apostles in 
Jerusalem have followed at a subsequent period ? This latter view, indeed, 
is supported even by the analogy of abrot 62 eic¢ rHv repitouqy (Gal. ii. 9), in- 
asmuch as James, Peter, and John had been already for a long time before 
this apostles to the Jews, but now arranged that as their destination for- 
mally in concert with Pauland Barnabas. (4.) That the stipulation respect- 
ing the poor (ii. 10) was occasioned by the very fact of Paul and Barnabas 
having brought pecuniary assistance (Acts xi. 30). But the care for the 
poor lay from the very beginning of the church so much at its heart, and 
was so much an object of apostolic interest (Acts ii. 44 f., iv. 34 ff., vi. 1ff.), 
that there was certainly no need of any special occasion for expressly making 
the remembrance of the poor one of the conditions in the concert, ii. 9 f. 
(5.) That the apostles, according to ii. 8, had insisted on the circumcision 
of Titus,—a non-emancipation from Mosaism, which might agree with the 
time of Acts xi. xii., when the conversion of the Gentiles was still in its in- 
fancy, but not with the later time of Acts xv. But see the note on ver. 3. 
Even if we allow the erroneous idea that the apostles had required this cir- 
cumcision, we should have to consider that James at a much later point 
(Acts xxi. 17 ff.) required Paul to observe a completely Jewish custom, froin 
which it is evident how much, even at a very late date, the Jewish apostles 
accommodated themselves to the Jewish Christians, and Paul also assented 
to it. (6.) That in Acts xv. there is no trace of the presence of John at Jeru- 
salem. But although John is not mentioned by name, he may very well 
have been included in the general of axécroAo. (Acts xv.). (7.) Lastly, 
Fritzsche remarks, ‘‘ Paulum novem circiter annos in Cilicia commoratum 
esse (v. Act. ix. 30, xi. 25; Gal. i. 18, cf. Gal. ii. 1; Act. x1. 380), quis 
tandem, quum multorum ab apostolis actorum memoria aboleverit . . . prae- 
fracte negare sustineat ?” etc.! Paul may certainly have been a long time in 
Syria and Cilicia, but how long, must remain entirely undetermined after 
what we have remarked on (1). Besides these arguments’ it has been urged?® 
that the conduct of Peter at Antioch (ii. 11 ff.) is too contradictory to the 
apostolic decree of Acts xv. to permit our identifying the journey in ques- 
tion with that made to the conference ; that in the whole of the epistle Paul 
makes no mention at all of the authority of the conference ; and lastly, that 


1° That Paul tarried about nine years in Ci- 
licia,who then would venture to persistently 
deny since the memory of many acts had 
perished fromthe memory of the apostles ?” 

2 As a revelation afforded to Paul himself 
must certainly be intended, the assertion 
often brought forward, that Kar’ amoxdAuyuw 
in ii. 2 applies to the narrative about the 
prophet Agabus (Acts xi. 28 ff.), is so evi- 


dently incorrect, that it does not merit 
notice. Also the special ground brought 
forward by Bottger, in order to confirm 
the identity of the journey Gal. ii. 1 with 
that described in Acts xi. xii., carries with 
it its own refutation. See, on the contrary, 
Riickert, in the Magaz. f. Hxeg. u. Theol. des 
NE Tee a), spell Sith. 
3 See especially Siiskind and Keil. 


CHAP Sins Tt 49 
* 

after the conference Paul judged more mildly as to the nullity of cireumci- 
sion than he does in our epistle. But nothing can be built on these argu- 
ments ; since (@) even if our journey were that mentioned in Acts xi. xii., 
still the reproach of inconstancy (grounded on his natural temperament) 
would rest upon Peter, because he had in fact at an earlier period been 
already divinely instructed and convinced of the admissibility of the Gen- 
tiles to Christianity (Acts x. 8 ff., xi. 2 ff.) ; (0) in the principle of his apos- 
tolic independence Paul had quite sufficient motive’ for not mentioning the 
apostolic decree, especially when dealing with the Galatians ;? and lastly (ce) 
the severe judgment of the apostle as to the nullity of circumcision in our 
letter was, in his characteristic manner, adapted altogether to the polemical 
interest of the moment : for that he should pass judgment on the same sub- 
ject, according to circumstances, sometimes more severely and sometimes 
more mildly, accords completely with the vigorous freedom and elasticity of 
his mind. Hence the passages cited for the freer view (Acts xvi. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 
20 ff.; Acts xxi. 20 ff.) cannot furnish any absolute standard. —II. To prove 
the identity of our journey with that of Acts xv., appeals have been made to 
the following arguments : (1) That Titus, whom Paul mentions in ii. 1, is in- 
cluded in twa¢ dAAoue 2 aitov, Acts xv. 23 (2) That in ver. 2, dvedéuny airoic 
TO evayy. 6 Knp. év Toig é9v. is parallel to Acts xv. 4, 12 ; (3) That the Judaizers 
mentioned in Acts xv; 5 are identical with the rapecdxrore evdadéAdorc, Gal. 
li. 4 ; (4) That the result of the apostolic discussions recorded in Acts xv. 
quite corresponds with 47’ obdé Tiroc . . . qvayxacdy repitundjpvat, Gal. ii. 3 ; 
(5) That in an historical point of view, Gal. ii. 11 agrees exactly with Acts xv. 
30 ; (6) That in Acts xi. Barnabas still has precedence of Paul, which, how- 
ever, is no longer the case throughout in Acts xv. (only in vv. 12, 25); (7) 
That in our epistle Paul could not have omitted to mention the important 
journey of Acts xv. But on the part of those who look upon our journey as 
that related in Acts xi. xii., or even in Acts xviil. 22,° such grounds for 
doubt are urged against all of these points,‘ that they cannot be used at least 
for an independent and full demonstration of the identity of our journey with 
that of Acts xv., but merely furnish an important partial confirmation of the 
proof otherwise adduced ; to say nothing of the fact that the accounts in Gal. 


ii. and Acts xv. present also points of difference, from which attempts have 
been made with equal injustice to deny the whole historical parallel, and to 
abandon unduly the historical truth of the 15th chapter of the Acts.°—The 
result of all the discussion is as follows :—As Paul, in accordance with his own 
clear words in Gal. ii.1 as well as with his whole plan and aim in the passage, 
can mean no other journey whatever except the second which he made as an apostle to 
Jerusalem, and as, moreover, the dia Sexateccdporv ét ov forbids our think- 
ing of that journey which is related in Acts xi. xii. as the second ; the journey repre- 
sented by him in Gal, ii.1 as his second journey must be held to be the same as that 
represented by Luke in Acts xv. as the third,—an identity which is also con- 


1 Comp. Introd. § 3. Wieseler, p. 557 ff. 
2 Comp. Ritschl, alikathol. K. p. 149. 5 Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, 
8 Wieseler. Holsten. 


4 See especially, Fritzsche J/.c. p. 224 ff. ; 


+ 


50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Jirmed by the historical parallels to be found in Gal. ii. and Acts xv. Tn this 
way, doubtless, the account of the Epistle to the Galatians conflicts with that 
of Acts ;? but, in the circumstances, it is not difficult to decide on which 
side the historical truth lies. [See Note XXX., p. 95.] The account of 
Luke, as given in Acts xi. xii., that Paul came to Jerusalem with Barnabas 
to convey the moneys collected, must be described as in part unhistorical. 
Perhaps (for it is not possible definitely to prove how this partial inaccuracy 
originated) Paul went only a part of the way with Barnabas (Acts xi. 30), and 
then, probably even before reaching Judaea (see below), induced by circum- 
stances unknown to us, allowed Barnabas to travel alone to Jerusalem ; and 
thereafter the latter again met Paul on his way back, so that both returned 
to Antioch together (Acts xii. 25), but Barnabas only visited Jerusalem in 
person. Schleiermacher® assumes an error on the part of Luke as author ; 
that, misled by different sources, he divided the one journey, Acts xv., into 
two different journeys, Acts xi. and xv. But the total dissimilarity of the 
historical connection, in which these journeys are placed by the narrative of 
Acts, makes us at once reject this supposition ; as, indeed, it cannot pos- 
sibly be entertained without unjustifiably giving up Luke’s competency for 
authorship, and by consequence his credibility, in those portions of his book 


1 Accordingly, the opinions that our pas- 
sage relates to a journey still later than 
that reported in Acts xv. fall to the ground 
of themselves, for the journey Acts xv. can 
neither be historically disputed nor ean it 
have been omitted by Paul. Following Jac. 
Cappellus, Whiston, and others, Kohler 
(Abfassungsz. p.8) has found our journey in 
Acts xviii. 22,—a view more recently de- 
fended by Wieseler, Chronologie ad. ap. Zei- 
talt. p. 201 ff., and Komment. p. 553 ff., also 
in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. art. Galaterbrigf ; 
but Schrader transfers it to the interval 
between vy. 20 and 21 of Acts xix.—to the 
time of the composition of the Second Epis- 
tle to the Corinthians. Against K6hler and 
Schrader, sce especially Schott, Hrdrterung, 
p. 22 ff.; Wurm, in the Z%ibing. Zeitschr. 
1833, I. p. 50 ff.; Anger, vat. temp. p. 153 ff. 
According to Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 4, even 
the journey of Acts xxi. 15-17 is the one in- 
tended ! Against Wieseler, who is supported 
by Lutterbeck, see Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 
1849, p. 460 ff. ; Zeller, Aposé. p. 218 f.; Hil- 
genfeld, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, 
p. 144 ff.; Méller on de Wette (ed. 3), p. 
35 ff. Comp. also Diisterdieck in Reuter’s Re- 
pert. Sept. 1849, p. 222; Schaff, Gesch. d. chr. 
ix. I. p. 181 ff. [Am. Rev. Ed. I. p. 335 sqq.], 
Holtzmann. in Schenkel’s kirchl. Zeitschr. 
1860, 8, p. 55 ff.; Ebrard, and others. It is 
unnecessary for us here to go further into 
Wieseler’s arguments from an exegetical 
point of view ; for the supposition of some 
later journey than Acts xv, must at all 


events from Gal: ii. 1 appear an exegetical 
impossibility, so long as we allow this much 
at least of truth to the Acts of the Apostles 
—that Paul was at the apostolic council, 
The journey to this council cannot have 
been passed over by Paul in his narrative 
given in our passage ; and consequently the 
journey Acts xviii. 22—which, too, he can- 
not have taken in company with Barnabas 
(Acts xv. 36 ff.)\—cannot have been the one 
intended by him. This is completely suffi- 
cient to invalidate even the latest discus- 
sions of Wieseler. Reiche aptly observes 
(Comm. crit. p. 3): “ Paulus aut non affuisse 
in apostolorum conventu Act. xv., aut male 
causae suae consuluisse, silentio id praeter- 
jens, censendus esset,”’ ‘“‘ Paul would have 
to be regarded either as not having been 
present at the apostolic conference, Acts 
15, or, by passing it over in silence, to have 
administered his cause unsuccessfully.” 

2 Hofmann (with whom Laurent agrees) 
still contents himself with the superficial 
current evasion, that Paul had no need to 
mention the journey related in Acts xi., 
because it did not afford his opponents any 
matter for suspicion. As if his opponents 
were to be reckoned so innocent and guile- 
less in their judgment, and asif Paul would 
not have been shrewd enough to see the 
use that would be made of his passing over 
in silence one of the journeys made by him 
to the seat of the apostles! 

3 Hinl. in’s N. T. p. 369 f. 


CHAP, If} 1, DA. 


in which he was not an eye-witness of the facts. Credner also’ has pro- 
nounced himself inclined to the hypothesis of an error on the part of Luke. 
He, however, makes the apostle travel with Barnabas (Acts xi. xii.) as far 
as Judaea, only not as far as the capital ; assuming that Paul remained 
among the churches of the country districts, and made the acquaintance 
with them presupposed ini. 22-24, Rom. xv. 19. But, on the one hand, 
looking at his apostolic interest, it is not in itself probable that, having 
arrived in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, he would fail, after so long an 
absence, to be drawn towards the mother-seat of the church, especially 
when he had come as deputy from Antioch ; on the other hand, we should 
expect that, in order to preclude his opponents from any opportunity of mis- 
representing him, he would have briefly mentioned this presence in Judaea 
(comp. i. 22), and mentioned it in fact with the express remark that at that 
time he had not entered Jerusalemitself. And, as regards the acquaintance 
with the churches in the country districts presupposed in i. 22-24, he may 
have made it sufficiently during the journey to the conference. The fact 
itself, that Paul during the journey recorded in Acts xi. was not at Jerusa- 
lem,” remains independent of the possible modes of explaining the so far 
unhistorical account there given. — eva Bapva3a] The following cvurapaa. 
x. Titov shows that Paul recognized himself as on this occasion the chief 
person, which agrees with Acts xv. 2, but not with Acts xi. 25, 30, xii. 25. 
—ovuraparaBav kai Titov] having taken along with us (as travelling compan- 
ion) also Titus. This xai finds its reference in vera Bapvaa, to which the civ 
In ovurapad. also refers ; not among others also (Wieseler),—a meaning which 
is not suggested by the text. Whether, however, at Acts xv. 2, Titus is 
meant to be included in kai tivac dAAove 2F adtSv, Must remain an open ques- 
tion. If heis meant to be included, then our passage serves to put the state- 
ment on the more exact historical footing, that Titus was not sent with the 
others by the church at Antioch, but was taken by Paul on his own behoof. 
The idea that he was sent on the part of the opposite party? cannot, on a 
correct view of Acts /.c., be entertained at all. [See Note XXXL. p. 95.] 


Note. — Tecoapwv, which Ludwig Cappellus, Grotius, Semler, Keil, Bertholdt, 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, also Guericke, Rinck, Kichler, B6hl, Matthaei 
(Religionsl. d. Ap. I. p. 624), Schott (in his Isagoge, p. 196, not in his later writ- 
ings), Wurm, Ulrich, and Bottger, wish to read instead of dexateccdpwr, is a 
mere conjectural emendation on chronological grounds, confirmed by no author- 
ity whatever, not even by the Chronic. Huseb., from the words of which it is, on 
the contrary, distinctly evident that the chronographer read Jexateccdpwr,* but 


. Kat et wy Tovto 


1 Fini. J. 1, p. 315. 

2 Which is admitted by Neander, ed. 4, p. 
188, following Bleek, Bettr. p. 55, and has 
been turned to further account by Baur and 
his school against the historical character 
of the narrative of the Acts; see on Acts 
xi. 30. 

3 Fritzsche. 

4To elmety avtov Sta 18 eTa@yv Soxet por 
TOVS XpoVvOUS THY amTOTTOAWY TOUS amd THs ava- 


AjWews apudmety avTov. . . 
Sa@mev, evpedyaetat 6 xpovos ad’ ov eBantiady 
kal avéBAcWev, ws meptexovaory at pagers, ETH 
6’, “By his saying after fourteen years, he 
seems to me to number the times of the 
apostles from the Ascension. If we do not 
grant this, the time will be found to be that 
from which he was baptized and looked up, 
four years as comprised in Acts.” 


52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


on account of the chronology, because he took the journey for that recorded in 
Acts xi. xii., suggested trecodpwv.! See Anger, Rat. temp. 128 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p. 
160 ff. ; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 206 f. Nevertheless Reiche, in the Comm. Crit., 
has again judged it necessary to read recodpwr, specially because the few mat- 
ters related of Paul in Acts x.-xv. cannot be held compatible with his having 
been seventeen years an apostle, and also because so early a conversion, as 
must be assumed from the reading Jexatecodpwr, does not agree with Acts i.- 
ix., several of the narratives of which, it is alleged, lead us to infer a longer, 
perhaps a ten years’, interval between the ascension of Christ and the conver- 
sion of the apostle ; as indeed the existence of churches already established in 
Judaea at the-time of this conversion (Gal. i. 22) points to the same conclusion, 
and 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff., where the a7oxd2vyuc refers to the conversion, agrees with 
reocdpwv, but not with dexatecodpwv inour passage. But when we consider the 
great incompleteness and partial inaccuracy of the first half of Acts, the possi- 
bility of explaining the establishment of the Judaean churches even in a shorter 
period embracing some four years, and the groundlessness of the view that 
2 Cor. xii. 2 (see on the passage) applies to the conversion of the apostle, these 
arguments are too weak to make us substitute a conjecture for an unanimously 
attested reading. 


Ver. 2. Aé] continuing the narrative, with emphatic repetition of the same 
word, as in Rom. iii. 22; 1 Cor. ii. 6 ; Phil. ii. 8, e¢ al.°-— kara aronddvyuy] 
in conformity with a revelation received. What an essential element for de- 
termining the bearing of the whole narrative |! Hence avé3. da . am. is not 
parenthetical (Matthias). But what kind of aroxddvpc it was—whether 
it was imparted to the apostle by means of an ecstasy (Acts xxii. 17; 
2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.), or of a nocturnal appearance (Acts xvi. 9, xviii. 19,xxiil. 
11, xxvii. 23), or generally by a prophetic vision (so Ewald), or by a com- 
munication from the Spirit (Acts xvi. 6, 7, xx. 22, 23), or in some other 
mode—remains uncertain. According to Acts xy. 2, he was deputed by the 
church of Antioch to Jerusalem ; but with this statement our cata aroxadvyuv 
does not conflict :* it simply specifies a circumstance having reference to 
Paul himself individually, that had occurred either before or after that reso- 
lution of the church, and was probably quite unknown to Luke. Luke nar- 
rates the outward cause, Paul the inward motive of the concurrent divine 
suggestion, which led to this his journey ; the two accounts together give 
us its historical connection completely. Comp. Acts x., in which also a rev- 
elation and the messengers of Cornelius combine in determining Peter to go 
to Caesarea. The state of the case would have to be conceived as similar, 
even if our journey were considered identical with that related Acts xi. xil., 
in which case kata dzoxdé2upw would apply not—possibly—to the prophe- 
sying of Agabus, but likewise to a divine revelation imparted to Paul him- 
self. Hermann,‘ as before him Schrader, and after him Day. Schulz,° have 
explained it : ‘‘explicationis causa, i.e., ut patefieret inter ipsos, quae vera es- 


11Tt is therefore a pure error, when 7eo- 4 De P. ep.ad Gal. trib. prim. capp. Lips. 
odpwv is sometimes styled a varia lectio. 1832, also in his Opuse. V. p. 118 ff. . 

2 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 361; Baeumlein, 5 De aliquot N. T. locor. lectione et interpr. 
Partik. p. 9. | 1833. 


* As Baur and Zeller maintain. 


CHAPALE.« 25 53 


set Jesu doctrina,” ‘‘for the purpose of explanation, i.e., that among them 
it might be made known what was the true doctrine of Jesus.”” No doubt 
kara might express this relation.’ But, on the one hand, the account of 
Acts as to the occasion of our journey does not at all require any explain- 
ing away of the revelation (see above); and, on the other hand, it would by 
no means be necessary, as Hermann considers that on our interpretation it 
would, that xara swva aroxdAvwww should have been written, since Paul’s ob- 
ject is not to indicate some sort of revelation which was not to be more pre- 
cisely defined by him, but to express the qualifying circumstance that he 
had gone up not of his own impulse, but at the divine command, not aq’ 
éavtov, but kard aroxddvyv, conformably to revelation. Moreover, it is the 
only meaning consonant with the aim of the apostle, who from the begin- 
ning of the epistle has constantly in view his apostolic dignity, that here 
also, as in i. 12, 6, azoxa2. should express a divine revelation,? as in fact the 
word is constantly used inthe N. T. in this higher sense.*— dvedéuqr] I laid 
before them, for information and examination.* — airoic] that is, the Chris- 
tians at Jerusalem, according to the well-known use of the pronoun for the 
inhabitants of a previously named city or province.® The restriction of the 
reference to the apostles,° who are of course not excluded, is, after ei¢ ‘Tepocd- 
Zoya, even still more arbitrary” than the view which confines it to the pres- 
byterium of the church.* Reuss also ° wrongly denies the consultation of the 
congregation. — 70 evayy. 5 knpboow év roic é3v.] The main doctrine of which is 
that of justification by faith. Chrysostom aptly remarks, 76 yopic¢ repirouie. 
The present tense denotes the identity which was still continuing at the time 
the epistle was written ; 7° év roic édvecr does not, however, mean among the 
nations,** but that it was his gospel to the Gentiles which Paul laid before the 
On the contrary,if avrots applied to the apos- 


1Comp. Wesseling, ad Herod. ii. 151; 


Matthiae, p. 1859; Winer, p. 376. 

2 Comp. Eph. iii. 3. 

3 Comp. i. 12. 

4 Comp. Acts xxv. 14; 2 Macc. iii. 9, and 
Grimm thereon. Among Greek authors, in 
Plutarch, Polyb., Diog. L., ete. 

5 Bernhardy, p. 288; Winer, p. 587. 

6 Chrysostom,Oecumenius, Calvin, Koppe, 
Schott, Olshausen, and others. 

7 Tf avrots applied to the apostles, there 
was no need for regarding (with Chrysostom 
and others) xa7’ iétav 5é rots Soxovor AS AMOre 
precise definition of avedéuny avrors ; for if 
so, Paul would have expressed himself in a 
way very illogical and liable to misunder- 
standing, because kar’ idiavy 6€ would be 
without meaning, if it was not intended to 
denote some act different from the general 
avetéuny avtots. Paulmust have written sim- 
ply avetéuny avrots x.7.A., avetéeuny dé Tots Sox, 
This remark applies also against the view 
of Baur and Zeller, who, although they allow 
that the language warrants our view, take 
the sense to be, ‘‘I set it forth to them, but 
only to those of highest repute in particular.” 


tles, the meaning, as the passage runs, 
would have to be taken as Schott (comp. 
Olshausen) gives it: ‘‘doctrinam . . . apos- 
tolis omnibus exposui, privatim vero (ube- 
Trius ac diligentius) iis, qui magni aestuman- 
tur, apostolis auctoritate insignibus, Petro, 
Johanni, Jacobo,” “I set forth the doctrine 
to all, but in private more fully and assid- 
uously to those who are regarded of high 
repute, viz., the apostles eminent in influ- 
ence, Peter, John, James.”” But how im- 
probable it isin itself, that Paul should have 
held such a separate conference with a 
select few of the apostles, and should not 
have vouchsafed an equally circumstantial 
and accurate exposition of his teaching to 
the whole of the apostles as such! Apart, 
however, from this, the three doxovvtes ap- 
pear to have been the only apostles present 
in Jerusalem at that time. 

§ Winer, Matthies. 

9 In the Revue théol. 1859, p. 62 ff. 

10 Comp. i. 16. 

11 Usteri. - 


54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


mother-church of Jewish Christianity. "— kar’ idiav 68 toic doKovor] sc. avedéunv 
70 evayy. 6 Kypboow év toig E3v. But apart, that is, in one or more separate 
conferences, to those of repute.* Toic doxovcr singles out the aestumatos from 
the body of Christians at Jerusalem. This, however, is not meant to apply 
to members of the church generally in good repute,* but (see on ver. 9) to 
James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. The other apostles who were 
still alive appear already to have ceased from personal connection with the 
church at Jerusalem. Vv. 6, 7, 9 show that it is not the anti-Pauline par- 
tisan adherents of those three who are referred to ;* and, indeed, it would 
have been entirely opposed to his apostolic character to lay his gospel spe- 
cially before doxoior in this sense. Moreover, the designation of the three apos- 
tles as of doxovvtec is not ‘‘an ironical side-glance,”* nor has it proceed- 
ed from the irritation of a bitter feeling against those who had habitually 
applied this expression to these apostles ;° but it is used in a purely histori- 
cal sense : for an ironical designation at this point, when Paul is about to re- 
late his recognition on the part of the earlier apostles, would be utterly de- 
void of tact, and would not be at all consonant either with the point of view 
of a colleague, which he constantly maintains in respect to the other apostles, 
or with the humility with which he regards this collegiate relation (1 Cor. 
xv. 8 ff.). He has, however, purposely chosen this expression (‘‘ the authori- 
ties”), because the very matter at stake was his recognition. Homberg, Paulus 
and Matthies wrongly assert that roi¢ doxovoc means putantibus, ‘* those think- 
ing,” and that the sequel belongs to it, ‘‘ gui putabant, num jorte in vanum 
currerem,” ‘* who thought that perhaps I had run in vain.” Vv. 5, 6, 9 testi- 
fy against this interpretation ; and the introduction of ¢ofeic#a into the notion 
of doxeiv is arbitrary, and cannot be supported by such passages as Hom. J. 
x. 97, 101.7 Besides, it would have been inconsistent with apostolic dignity 
to give such a private account to those who were suspicious. In classical 
authors also oi doxovvtec, without anything added to define it, means those of 
repute, who are much esteemed, nobiles.°—But why did Paul submit his gospel 
not merely to the Christians in Jerusalem generally, but also specially to the 
three apostles? By both means he desired to remove every suspicion which 
might anywhere exist in the minds of others,’ that he was laboring or had 
labored in vain ; but how easy it is to understand that, for this purpose, he 
had to address to the apostles a more thorough and comprehensive state- 
ment, and to bring forward proofs, experiences, explanations, deeper 


1 Comp. Rom. xi. 13. hausen. 
2 On kar idtay, comp. Matt. xvii. 19: Mark 7 See, on the contrary, Hartung, Pariikell. 
iv. 34, ix. 28; Valckenaer, ad Hur. Phoen. II. p. 1388 f. 


p. 439. It is, like the ‘é¢¢, more usual in the 
classical authors (Thue. i. 182. 2, ii. 44. 2; 
Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 4, Anab. v. 7. 13, vi. 2. 13; 
Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 88), the contrast to 
ko.vy Or Synpooia (comp. Mace. iv. 5). 

3 Comp. avSpas nyoumevous ev Tols adeAdois, 
Acts xv. 22. 

4 Grotius. 

5 Schwegler; I. p. 120. 

6 Cameron, Riickert, Schott, comp. Ols- 


8 See Eur. Hec. 295, and thereon Schaefer 
and Pflugk; Porphyr. de abstin. ii. 40, e¢ al.; 
Kypke, II. p. 274; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xiii. 
56. Comp. also Clem. Cor. 1.57. Just so the 
Hebrew awn. See Gesenius, Ves. I. p. 531; 
Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 889 f. Comp. déxcmor, 
Plat. Pol. x. p. 618 A; Herod. 1.65; Blom- 
field, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. p. 109. 

® Comp. Chrysostom. 


CHAPS IL; 2: 55 
dialectic deductions, etc.,’ which would have been unsuitable for the gen- 
eral body of Christians, among whom nothing but the simple and popular 
exposition was apprepriate !_ Therefore Paul dealt with his colleagues ca~ 
idiav. But we must not draw a distinction as to matter between the public 
and the private discussion, as Estius and others have done : ‘ publice ita 
contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mo- 
sis . . . privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit 
ipsos quoque Judaeos ab observantia Mosaicae Legis . . . esse liberandos,” 
etc., ‘In public he devoted himself to the proof that the Gentiles are under 
no obligation to be circumcised and observe the law of Moses ; but in the 
private and secret conference held with the apostles, it was resolved that 
even the Jews should be liberated from the observance of the Mosaic law.” 
In this way Paul would have set forth only the half of his gospel to the 
mass of the Christians there ; and yet this half-measure, otherwise so opposed 
to his character, would not have satisfied the Jewish-Christian exclusiveness. 
Thiersch also wrongly holds? that the subject of the private discussion was 
Paul’s apostolic dignity ; it was nothing else than 7d eiayyédiov x.7.2., and 
only in so far his apostolic legitimacy. The odject of the private discussion 
was, in Winer’s opinion : ‘‘ut non, si his videretur P. castigandus, pub- 
lica expostulatione ipsius auctoritas infringeretur,” ‘‘so that if it should 
seem to them (the doxovor) that Paul ought to be reprimanded, his influ- 
ence might not be broken by the public complaint.” But this also is not 
in accordance with the decided character of Paul ; and if he had dreaded a 
public expostulation, he would not have ventured first to set forth his gospel 
publicly, because the apostles, in the event of disapproval, would not have 
been able to withhold public contradiction. The view that the private dis- 
cussion with the doxovo. preceded the general discussion with the church,? 
runs counter to the account of our passage, which represents the course of 
events as the converse. [See Note XXXII., p. 96.]—pgrwe cic xevdv tpéyo 
édpayov| Taken by itself, uw may signify either lest possibly, ne forte, and 
thus express directly the design of the avedéunv,* or whether... not possibly, 
num forte,* thus indirectly interrogative. The former interpretation is decid- 
edly to be rejected, because the indicative aorist édpavov does not suit it ; 
for, according to the Greek use of the particles of design with the indicative 
aorist or imperfect,°® the aveféuyv would not actually have taken place ; and 
besides this, we should have to assume—without any ground for doing so in 
the context—that rpéyw and édpayov are said ex aliorum judicio,’ ‘from the 


1 This was a case in which the principle 
beyond doubt applied, codiay 5 Aadodpmev ev 
Tots TeAevois, 1 Cor, ii. 6. 

2 Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 128. 
Lange, apost. Zeitalt. p. 100. 

3So Neander, p. 277 [Am. Ed., p. 124]; 
Lekebusch, Apostelgesch. p. 295. 

4 So, following the Vulgate and the Greek 
Fathers, Erasmus, Luther, and most exposi- 
tors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Rtickert, 
Schott. 


Comp. 


5 Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Wieseler. 

6 See on iv. 17. 

7 Those who do not agree with this, fall 
into forced interpretations, as Fritzsche, 
Opuse. p. 175: “ne forte frustra etiam tum, 
quum epistolam ad Galatas scriberet, apos- 
toluslaboraret, aut . . . avteiter jam labor- 
avisset,”’ ‘“‘lest, perhaps, it was in vain that 
the apostle labored even when he wrote 
the Epistle to the Galatians, or that he had 
already labored previously to the journey.” 


56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


judgment of others,” and that rpéyo is subjunctive, although by its connec- 
tion with édpayov it evidently proclaims itself indicative. Hence p#ro¢ must 
be rendered num forte, and the reference of the nwm is supplied by the idea, 
‘for consideration, for examination,” included in aveféuyv.' The passage 
is therefore to be explained : ‘‘ [laid before them my gospel to the Gentiles, 
with a view to their instituting an investigation of the question whether I am not 
possibly running or have run in vain.” The apostle himself, on his own part, 
was in no uncertainty about this question, for he had obtaimed his gospel 
from revelation, and had already such rich experience to support him, that 
he certainly did not fear the downfall of his previous ministry ;? hence 
unzec is by no means to be understood ? as implying any uncertainty or 
apprehension of his own (in order to see, in order to be certain, whether). 
But he wanted to obtain the judgment and declaration of the chureh and the 
apostles.* Observe, moreover, that the apostle does not say eitwe (whether 
possibly) ; but, with the delicate tact of one who modestly and confidently 
submits himself to the judgment of the church and the apostles, while hos- 
tile doubts as to the salutary character of his labors are by no means unknown 
to him, he writes wyrwe, whether . . . not possibly (iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5), that 
is, in the positive sense, whether perhaps.° In no case has the apostle in 
pyrwc k.7.2. expressed the intention of procuring for himself a conviction of 
the correctness of his teaching. °— cic xevdv] in cassum, ‘in vain.””’ Paul 
conceives his running as vain, that is, not attaining the saving result aimed at,® 


1 Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 137, 140. 

2 Holsten. Against Holsten’s exaggera- 
tion Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 117 f.) 
has justly declared himself. The counter 
remarks of Holsten, z. Hv. d. Petr. u. Paul. 
p. 277, are immaterial. 

3 With Usteri and Hilgenfeld, also Butt- 
mann, veut. Gr. p. 303, and Holsten. 

4 So, correctly, Wieseler ; comp. Hofmann, 
Schriftbew., II. 2, p. 44 f., who, however, 
heil. Schr. N. T. I. p. 86, supplies only 
avedéunv (without 7d evayy. x.7.A) after T. 
Soxover, thus making pyrws x.7.A. the matt 
itself laid before them ; but this would be at 
variance with the essential idea of laying 
before them the gospel, of which Paul is 
speaking, for he does not repeat avedéunv, 
and that a/one. According to Hofmann, the 
state of the case would amount to this, that 
Paul desired to have the answer to the 
question py7ws x.7.A. from the doxoda: only, 
and not also from the church,—a view 
which would neither harmonize with the 
position of the latter (comp. Acts xv. 22 f.), 
nor would leave apparent in the text any 
object for his submitting his gospel to the 
church at all. 

5 In pijws «.7.A., let us conceive to our- 
selves the moment when the apostle has 
laid his gospel before those assembled, and 
then says as it were, ‘‘Here you have my 
gospel tothe Gentiles; by it you may now 


judge whether Iam perhaps laboring in vain, 
or—if from the present I look back upon 
the past—have so labored /’’ The supposition 
of irony (Marcker in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1866, 
p. 537) is not warrantable amidst the 
gravity of the whole surrounding circum- 
stances. 

6 Winer (p. 470) justly lays stress upon this 
in opposition to Fritzsche, but is of opinion 
(with de Wette) that Paul desired to obviate 
the frustration involved in pymws x.7.A., by 
inducing the assent of the apostles to his 
gospel, “‘ because without this assent and 
recognition the Christians who had been 
converted by him would have remained 
out of communion with the others’? (de 
Wette). But this latter idea is unnecessa- 
rily introduced ; and even in the event 
of non-recognition, Paul, looking to his 
direct calling and the revelation he had re- 
ceived, could not have regarded it as in- 
volving the result of his labor being in vain. 

7 See Jacobs ad Anthol. VII. p. 328. Comp. 
the passages from Josephus in Kypke; 
from the LXX., Isa. Ixv. 23 ef al. ; from the 
N. T., 2 Cor. vi. 1, Phil. 11: 16,0) @hessiain: 
Comp. also the use of eis couvdv, eis Karpov, eis 
kadov, ‘‘in common, in season, in good 
time,” and the like, in Bernhardy, p. 221. 

8 Comp. the classical avdévnra movetv, ‘to 
perform senseless labors,’’ Plat. ep. 486 C. 


CHAP. II., 3. 57 


if his gospel be not the right and true one. —zpéyw] a figurative expression, 
derived from the running in the stadiwm, for earnestly striving activity—in 
this case, official activity, as in Phil. ii. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 7.1. The present 
indicative transfers us into the present time of the aveéuyv, from which 
édpayov then looks back into the past. A clear and vivid representation.? 


Note.—Acts xv. 4, 12 must not be adduced as proof either for or against 
(Fritzsche, Wieseler, and others) the identity of our journey with that of Acts 
xv. The two facts—that related in Acts xv. 4, 12, and that expressed by dve- 
Ogunv x.T.A. in Gal. ii, 2—are two different actions, both of which took place at 
that visit of the apostle to Jerusalem, although what is stated in our passage 
was foreign to the historical connection in Acts xv., and therefore is not re- 
corded there. The book of Acts relates only the transactions conducive to his ob- 
ject, in which Paul took part as deputy from the church of Antioch. What he did 
besides in the personal interest of his apostolic validity and ministry,—name- 
ly, his laying his gospel as well before the church (not to be identified with the 
assembly of the council) as before the doxovyrec also separately,—forms the sub- 
ject of his narrative in Gal. ii., which is related to that in the Acts, not as ex- 
cluding it and thereby impugning its historical character, but as supplement- 
ing it (contrary to the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). Comp. on 
Acts xv. 19 f. As to the non-mention of the apostolic decree, see Introd. § 3. 


Ver. 3. Observe, that Paul does not pass on to the result of his discus- 
sions with the doxovo: until ver. 6, and consequently it is ver. 6 ff. which 
corresponds to the a7’ idiav dé doxovor in ver. 2; so that vv. 3-5 have refer- 
ence to the result of the laying his gospel to the Gentiles before the Chris- 
tians in Jerusalem generally, and correspond with the first part of ver. 2 
(avebéunv avtoic TO evayy. 6 Kyp. év tT. év.). — But so little had that exposition 
of my gospel to the church at Jerusalem a result counteracting it and im- 
plying the eic¢ xevov tpéyw 7 Edpayov, that, on the contrary, not even Titus, etc. 
Thus 447’ ovdé * introduces a fact which—in contrast to the idea of ‘‘ running 
in vain,” which had just been brought forward as the point for inquiry in 
that exposition of his gospel —serves as the surest palpable proof how tri- 
umphantly the Gentile gospel of the apostle (which rejected the necessity 
of circumcision for the Hellenes) maintained its ground then before the 
church of Jerusalem, and how very far people were from ascribing to the 
apostle a running, or having run, in vain. For otherwise it would have 
been absurd, if the church had not pleaded for, and accomplished, the cir- 
cumcision at least of Titus.4 ‘‘ But not even this was done, to say nothing 
of its being a duty of the church to reject my gospel, which was altogether 
opposed to the circumcision of Gentiles, and to decide that I cic kevov rpéyo 
 édpazov |” This line of argument involves a syllogism, of which aA’ ovdé 


1In other passages, Christian activity p. 810; also Ellendt, Zexw. Soph. IT. p. 104. 
in general, as 1 Cor. ix. 24 f., Gal. v. 7, Heb. 3 Comp. Luke xxiii. 15; Acts xix. 2. 
xii. 1. Comp. Rom. ix. 16. 4 The latter, as associated with the apostle 
2As to the indicative generally with in teaching, must, in his uncircumcised Gen- 
the indirect interrogative uy, whether not, tile condition, have been specially offensive 
see Bernhardy, p. 397; Hermann, ad Viger. to those who had Judaistic views. 


58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


. . . mepitunOjvat is the minor. —"EAAnv ov] Although a Hellene, a Gentile.? 
We have no further details as to his descent. — jvayxdoby|] From vy. 4, 5 it 
follows that, on the part of certain Christians at Jerusalem (not of the apos- 
tles also, who are not referred to until ver. 6, where the kav’ idiav dé roic dok. 
is resumed), the circumcision of Titus had been urged, but had not been 
complied with on the part of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, and this resistance 
was respected by the church ;? hence the oi jvayxdoty repiruntigvar, there was 
not imposed on him the necessity of submitting to be cirewmeised. 
itors, however, adopt the common opinion that oidé . . . qvayxdoby mepir. 
implies that the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, which is ad- 
duced by Paul as a proof of his agreement with the apostles.* This view is 
decisively set aside by the sequel (see on ver. 4), apart from the fact that 
here the relation to the apostles is not yet under discussion. Moreover, if 
the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, there would have been 
no occasion for the expression jvayxdob7. Certain individuals in the church, 
no doubt instigated by the false brethren (ver. 4), had really come forward 
with the demand that Titus must submit to be circumcised.* To look upon 
the false brethren themselves as those who demanded the circumcision of 
Titus ® does not suit ver. 4, in which they appear only as the more remote 
cause of the demand ; they kept in the background.° 


Most expos- 


Note.—An inconsistency with Acts xv., in which the argument and decision 
are against the necessity of circumcision, would only emerge in ver. 3, if the 
matter in question here had been the principal transactions of the council itself, 
and if those who required the circumcision of Titus had been the aposiles (or 
had at least included the apostles), as Fritzsche, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, and 
others assume. But as neither of these is the case, and as, indeed, it does not 
even follow from our passage that the apostles had so much as merely advised 
the circumcision of Titus (Wieseler’s earlier opinion, which he has now rightly 
abandoned), this passage cannot furnish arguments either against the identity 
of the journey Gal. ii. with that of Acts xv. (Fritzsche, p. 224), or against the 
historical character of Acts xv. (Baur and his followers). 


Ver. 4 f. The motive, why the demand of circumcision made as to Titus 
was not complied with by Paul, Barnabas, and Titus (comp. eifayev, ver. 5). 
It was refused on account of the false brethren, to whom concession would 


1 This ‘although a Hellene’’ refers to 0 avv 
é€uot. Paul is conscious of the boldness, nay, 
of the defiance (comp. Jerome on ver. 1, 
“‘qusus sit’), which was involved in bring- 
ing the Helene with him to the council at 
Jerusdem, the seat of Judaism. In the 
sense of my official colleague (Reiche, Wiese- 
ler), the simple o civ éuoc is not in harmony 
with the context. 

2 For the qvayxdody wepitundqvar, if it had 
oceurred, could only have occurred through 
the church—and indeed possibly even the 
apostolie college (as the Tiibingen criticism 
asserts)—joining in the demand made on 


Titus, and adopting it as their own. 

3. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
lact, Oecumenius, and many others, includ- 
ing Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, de 
Wette, Hofmann, Sieffert. 

4 Comp. the subsequent case of Timothy, 
who, under different circumstances, was 
circumcised by Paul himself (Acts Xvi. 3). 

5 Bleek, Wieseler, and others. 

6 Holsten wrongly reverses the relation, 
when he holds that behind the false breth- 
ren Paul saw the Christians of Jerusalem 
and the Soxovrtes. 


CHAP. Il., 4. 59 


otherwise have been made in a way conducive to their designs against 
Christian liberty.— dvd dé rode mapeiodKtove evdadérgouc| sc. obk HvayKdoby 
repitunOjva.' These words, however, are not, properly speaking, to be sup- 
plied ; in did 62 tr. x. . they receive their more precise definition, made spe- 
cially prominent by 06é, autem: on account, however, of the false brethren. 
Though Paul might have subjoined this immediately without dé, he inserts 
the dé not superfluously,? but on account of the important bearing of the 
matter on his argument. The case is similar when a more precise defini- 
tion is made prominent by dé, the same word being repeated, as in ver. 2.* 
On dé Bengel justly remarks, ‘‘ declarat et intendit,” ‘‘he declares and 
intends,” as in fact dé is often used by classical authors for giving promi- 
nence to an explanatory addition in which the previous verb is of course 
again understood.* As to the matter itself, observe how Paul under 
other circumstances, where there was no dogmatic requirement of oppo- 
nents brought into play, could bring himself to allow circumcision ; see 
Acts xvi. 8. Consequently after ver. 3 a comma only is to be placed, not 
a full stop, or even a colon.® Others *® supply avé8nv, which, however, 
after ver. 3, could not possibly occur to the mind of a reader.’ Rinck ® 
assumes an anacoluthon,—that ov« eigauev was intended to follow on sa 
d& Tove TapeioadKT. WevdadéAd., but that Paul had been led off by the long 
parenthesis and had then added oic. Buttmann® leaves the choice to 
be made between this view and ours. But if Paul had intended to write, 
on account of the false brethren we have not yielded, he would not in doing 
so have represented the false brethren as those to whom he had not yielded ; 
by using oic he would thus have altered" the sense of what he had begun to 


1 To supply merely yvayxaodn mepitp. with- 
out ovk (Koppe), so that yvayxacdy is to be 
understood in the altered sense, ‘‘ But on 
account of the false brethren, it was insisted 
on in this case,” is entirely inadmissible, 
both on account of this very diversity of 
sense,and also because in ver. 8 the nega- 
tion is essential and indeed the chief point. 

2 Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact. 

3 So, in substance, Theodore of Mopsu— 
estia, Augustine, Camerarius, Erasmus, 
Castalio, Piscator, Bos, Calovius, Estius, 
Bengel, and others: more recently, Schott, 
Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
Ellicott, Reithmayr; also Matthies, who, 
however, so explains the passage that we 
should rather expect it to run, da 5é ray 
Tapeccaktwv WevdaderApav. 

4 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 359. 

5 Lachmann, Tischendorf. 

® As Zachariae, Storr, Borger, Flatt, Her- 
mann, Matthias. 

7 Olshausen takes a similar but still more 
harsh and arbitrary view, that the idea in 
Paul’s mind was, ‘“‘I went indeed up to 
Jerusalem, in order to lay my gospel before 
the apostles (?) for examination ; on account 


of these, however, it was really not at all 
necessary ... but, on account of the false 
brethren, I found myself induced to take 
steps.”” In theardor of his language, Paul 
had allowed himself to be diverted from the 
construction he had begun; and described 
instead the nature of the false teachers. 

8 Lucubr. crit. p. 170 f. (so previously 
Grotius, and recently Wieseler). 

9 Neut. Gr. p. 329 f. 

10 Wieseler seeks to avoid this by taking 
Sua 5€ tovs mapero. Wevdad. as equivalent to 
tov d5€ WevdadéApwv Kedevdvtwy Todo, ‘‘ the 
false brethren demanding this :” with their 
demand Paul had not exhibited compliance. 
But é4 means nothing else than an account 
of, that is, according to the context, with 
reference to them (comp. Acts xvi. 3), namely, 
because they lurked in the background in 
the matter, and it was inexpedient to take 
account of their designs or to give them 
any free scope. Also in Heb. ii. 10, vi. 7%, 
John vi. 57, 6é with the accus. is simply on 
account of, and has to receive its more pre- 
cise meaning from the context. In the 
passages quoted by Wieseler (Xen. Cyr. vy. 2. 
35, and Plut, Cam. 35), dua, according to the 


60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


say, and would simply have occasioned perplexity by the mixture of an ac- 
count of and to whom. But there is no need to resort at all to an anacolu- 
thon when, as here, what immediately precedes presents itself to complete 
the sense. This remark holds good also against Winer, p. 529, who! as- 
sumes that Paul mixed up the two thoughts : ‘‘ We did not have Titus cir- 
cumcised on account of the false brethren ;” and, ‘‘I might nowise yield to 
the false brethren.” Hofmann? also produces an unnecessary anacoluthic 
derangement of the sentence, by supposing that a new sentence begins with 
Oia O& Tapecoakt. pevd., but that the relative definition oitwvec x.7.A. does not 
allow it to be completed ; that, in fact, this completion does not take place 
at all, but with ver. 6 a new period is begun, attached to what immediately 
precedes. Following the example of Tertullian, ce. Mare. v. 8, Ambrose, 
Pelagius, and Primsius (opposed by Jerome), Riickert, followed by Elwert, 
supplements the passage as follows : ‘‘ But on account of the false brethren 
I withal allowed Titus to be circumcised” (consequently repretuqOy). Accord- 
ing to his view, this is the course of thought in the passage : ‘‘ Even Titus 
was at that time not forced to be circumcised ; there was not, and could not 
be, any question of compulsion ; but because I saw that there were false 
brethren, whose sole endeavor was to discover a vulnerable point in us, I 
considered it advisable to give them no occasion (?), and had Titus circum- 
cised. Nevertheless, to yield out of obedicnce to them, and to acknowledge a 
necessity in respect to all Gentiles, never occurred to me for a moment,” 
etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged, first, that in ver. 3 the 
emphasis is laid on Tiroc and not on 7vayxaoby, and in ver. 5 on zpd¢ dpav and 
not on rH irorayy 3 secondly, that the idea of ‘‘ acknowledging a necessity 
in respect to all Gentile Christians” is not even hinted at by any word of 
Paul ; and thirdly, the general consideration that a point so important and 
so debatable as the (alleged) permission of the circumcision of Titus would 
have been, would have needed, especially before the Galatians (comp. v. 2), 
a very different elucidation and vindication from one so enigmatically in- 
volved, in which the chief ideas could only be read between the lines. But 
such a compliance itself shown towards false brethren, —not for the sake, pos- 
sibly, of some weak brethren, who are imported into the case by Elwert, nor 
on account of the Jews, as in the circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3),— 
would have been quite unprincipled and wrong. Very near to the interpre- 
tation of Riickert comes that of Reiche, who places the (supposed) circum- 
cision of Titus not at the time then being and at Jerusalem, but at an earlier 
period, at which it took place either in Antioch or elsewhere.* But against 


well-known Greek usage, is ‘‘ for the sake 
of,” that is, through merit or through fault 
of any one. 

1 Comp. Hilgenfeld. 

2 Comp. his Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 46. 

3 At vero... ut rem aliam hic interpo- 
nam, vy. 3-6(nam ver. 6 oratio ad apostolos 
redit), Titi nimirum circumcisionem, quam 
quis forte modo dictis ver. 2 opponat, qua- 
si apostolorum aliorumye auctoritate vel 


jussu fecerim, aut ipse circumcisionem le- 
gisque observationem necessariam duxerim 
6 f. parum mihi constans, sufficiat mon- 
uisse :— nec Titus ille comes meus et adjutor, 
Graecus natus, minime est coactus circumcide 
ame vel a quocunque ; propter falsos autem 
Sratres, qui tum nos speculabantur, qaomodo 
immunitate a lege Mos. a Christo nobis 
parta uteremur, eo consilio, ué denuo nos sub 
legis servitium redigerent ... propter hos dico 


CHAP, II., 4. 61 


this view may be urged partly the arguments already used against Riickert, 
and in addition the arbitrary procedure involved in shifting vv. 3-6 to an 
earlier time ; although Tiro¢ 6 civ éuoi, evidently referring back to cuuzapa- 
AaBov cai Tirov in ver. 1, precludes our taking this event out of the course 
of the narrative begun in ver. 1. Moreover, sepietuiy as supplied by 
Reiche cannot be invested with the sense ‘‘ liber e¢ volens circumcisionem 
suscepit,” ‘‘ freely and voluntarily received circumcision,”—a sense which, 
for the very sake of the contrast, since the emphasis lies on liber et volens, 
would need to be expressed (by éAeA0vtT Hv TepretuAOy or the like). Lastly, 
an un-Pauline compliance * would be the result of the sense which would 
follow from the omission of oj¢ ovdé in ver. 5 (see the critical notes) : ‘‘ But 
on account of the false brethren . . . I gave way momentarily and caused 
Titus to be circumcised,” to which also the sentence of purpose which fol- 
lows, iva 7 GAfOeca x.7.2., would be utterly unsuitable ; for, according to the 
point of view of our epistle, the ‘‘ truth of the gospel” could only continue 
with the Galatians if such a compliance did not take place. — rapecodkrove] 
subintroductos (Vulgate), brought in by the side, that is, privily and “illegiti- 
mately,—namely, into the association of Christian brotherhood, of which 
they are not at all true members.* The word does not occur elsewhere in 
ancient authors ;*° but it must have been employed on several occasions, as 
mapeicaxtov is quoted by Hesychius, Photius, Suidas, and zapercaxrove by 
Zonaras, being explained by aAAérpiov and addorpiove, ‘* pertaining to another 
and to others.”” The word has also been preserved as a name (by-name) in 
Strabo, xvii. 1, p. 794, Ilapeicaxtoc éxuxAnbeic TroAenaioc. The verb rapewcdyw 
is very current in later authors.* — pevdadéAdove] as in 2 Cor. xi. 26, persons 
who were Christians indeed, but were not so according to the true nature 
of Christianity—from the apostle’s standpoint, anti-Pauline, Judaizing reac- 
tionaries against Christian freedom, The article points out that these peo- 
ple were historically known to the readers, Acts xv. 1, 5. — oituvec x.1.A.] 





Titus ritum hune externum .. . suscepit vo- 
fens, ut istis calumniandi nocendique ansa 
et materies praeripiatur,’”’ etc., ‘But to 


might be taken away from them, etc.” 
1 Reiche seeks to evade this by thus ex- 
plaining ver. 5: ‘‘guibus, quanquam pru- 


interpose here another subject, vv. 3-6 
(for in vy. 6 the argument returns to the 
apostles), forsooth, the circumcision of 
Titus, which some one perhaps opposes to 
what has just been said, v. 2, as though 
with little consistency I did this by the in- 
flueuce or command of the other apostles, 
it is sufficient to have taught : Neither was 
Titus, my companion and assistant, born 
a Greek, in any way compelled to be cir- 
ecumcised either by me or by any one; but 
because of false brethren who were then 
spying us out, as to how we were employ- 
ing the immunity from the law of Moses, 
acquired for us by Christ, that they might 
anew bring us under bondage to the law— 
because of these, I say, Titus voluntarily un- 
derwent this rite, that the occasion and 
material of calumniating and injuring ws 


dentiae fuerit, propter eos Titum circumci- 
dere, attamen ceterum, in rebus ad fidem lib- 
ertatemque Christianam fere facientibus, ne 
paulisper quidem cessimus iis obtemperantées,” 
“Although it would have been the part of 
prudence to circumcise Titus because of 
them, yet in matters generally pertaining to 
Christian faith and liberty, we yielded by 
obeying them, not even for a little.” We 
should thus have in ver. 5a saving clause, 
the most essential point of which (‘‘ ceterum, 
in rebus,”’ etc., ‘* but, in things,” etc.) would 
have to be mentally supplied. 

2 See the note after ver. 5. 

8 Prol. Sir. in Biel, III. p. 48, and Schleus- 
ner, IV, p. 228, mpodAoyos mapeiocakros adyAov. 

4Plut. Mor. p. 828 D; Polyb. ii. 7. 8, vi. 56. 
12; Diod. xii. 41; 2 Pet. ii. 1. Comp. zape- 
cedvcoay, Jude 4, 


62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


quippe qui, ‘‘ since they,” contains the explanation as to the dangerous char- 
acter of these persons, by which the 6d 637. 7. p. is justified. — raperoq- 
Gov." The idea of being smuggled in (which is denied by Hofmann) is here 
accordant with the context, and indicated purposely by the twice-repeated 
mapelc.? —kataoxorjoat] in order to spy out, hostilely to reconnoitre, to watch.* 
— iv éixowev év XptotS "Iyo.].a more precise definition of the preceding 
quov.* This freedom is, as may be gathered from the entire context, nothing 
else than the freedom from Mosaism (Rom. x. 4) through justification by faith.® 
Matthies introduces also the Christian life, but without warrant ; the spying 
of the pseudo-Christians was directed to the point, whether and to what ex- 
tent the Christians did not conform to the enactments of the Mosaic law. 
"Ev Xpio7@ implies asits basis the solemn idea of the év Xpicr@ elvac.° Hence : 
in Christ, as our element of life by means of faith,’ as Christians. — iva jude 
Katadoviacovorr®| is the dangerous design which they had in view in their 
Kataoxorf#oa. ‘Huac applies, as before, to the Christians as such, not merely 
to Paul and Titus (Winer, de Wette), or to Paul and the Gentile Christians 
(Baur) ; for it must be the wider category of those to whom, as the genus, 
the iyeic in ver. 5 belongs as the species. We must also notice dvayeivy in 
ver. 5, which is correlative to the éyouev in ver. 4. The future after iva indi- 
cates, that the false brethren expected their success to be certain and en- 
during.’ In classical authors we find only érwc, d¢pa, and yA thus construed, 
and not iva, as Brunck, ad Hur. Bacch. 1380, supposed,” but in the Hellen- 
ists and Fathers iva also." Kara strengthens the idea of the simple verb : to 
make us wholly slaves (of Mosaism), to enslave us.:? The mode in which the 
apostle looks at these people does not confound the result with the inten- 


1 Comp. Lucian, Asin. 15, ei Aveos maperoeA- 
Sor; Polyb. ii. 55. 3. 

2 Comp. generally on Rom. y. 20, and see 
Chrysostom on our passage. 

SiConips Joshy ih 2, si) 2Sam. px. os 1 
Chron. xix. 3; Eur. Hel. 1623; Polyb. x. 2; 
also katackomos, @ spy. 

4 Comp. Eph. ii. 4 e¢ qd. 

5 Comp. iii. 18, v. 1. 

Give (62) Cor, Vv. 213) phe ili. 
Comp. Eph. i. 7, iii. 12. 

7 Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17. 

8 The Recepta, defended by Reiche, is 
katadovAwowrv7ar, But B** F G, 17, Dam., 
have katadovAwowow ; and AB* C D E &, 
min., catadovAdcovoery (SO Lachmann, Scholz, 
Tischendorf). The middle (to which, more- 
over, Lucian, Scloec. 12, assigns an un- 
founded difference from the active) is ac- 
cordingly abandoned unanimously by the 
best mss., and is the more readily to be 
given up, because in this case the ver- 
sions cannot come into consideration, 
and consequently the importance of 
the mss. is all the greater. The middle 
being most familiar from the LXX. (Gen. 
xlvil. 21; Ex. i, 14, vi, 5; Lev. xv. 46; Ezek. 


6, et al. 


xxix. 18; the active, only in Jer. xy. 14, xvii. 
4; the Apocrypha has the mtddle only), in- 
truded itself unsought. This much in oppo- 
sition to Reiche, who derives the active 
from 2 Cor. xi. 20. Further, as catadovAw- 
covo.v has the great preponderance of testi- 
mony, and was very easily liable to the al- 
teration into the subjunctive usual after 
tva, it is to be adopted (with Usteri, Schott, 
Wieseler, Hofmann), but is not to be con- 
sidered (with Fritzsche) as a corruption of 
the subjunctive. The fecepta catadovAwowr- 
tat, Which K and most of the later mss. 
have, shows that the change into the sub- 
junctive must have been very prevalent at 
an early date. Nevertheless L and one 
min. have katadovAdcorvtar, which must 
have sprung from the original ckatadovAwaov- 
ov, 

® See Matthiae, p. 1186; Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 683, Rost, ad Duncan. Lex. p. 870. 

10 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 629. 

11 Comp. Winer, p. 271; Buttmann, newt. 
Gr. p. 202. 

12 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20; Plat. Pol. i. p. 315 
B, SovActabar adicws Kkal KxatadedovA@odar: 
Thue. iii. 70. 2, and Duker én doc. 


CHNPS Tie, de 63 


tion (de Wette) ; it represents the latter correctly according to the fact 
(they desire to bind the Christians to the law), but in the form which it as- 
sumed from the Puuline point of view.} 

Ver. 5. Connection : —‘‘ On account of the false brethren, however, Titus 
was not compelled to be circumcised ; to these we did not yield even for an 
hour. Had we consented to the suggestion, which was made to us by Chris- 
tians at Jerusalem (see on ver. 3), at least to circumcise Titus, we should 
have thereby yielded to the false brethren standing in the background, who 
declared the circumcision of Gentile Christians to be necessary ; but this 
did not at all take place.” ? — oic] in the sense of rotbrove yap, ‘‘ for to these.” 
See Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 195 f.; Kithner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 1. 64 ; Ellendt, 
Lex, Soph. Il. p. 871. — pic bpav] not even for an hour, indicating a very 
short duration of time. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; Philem. 15 ; John v. 35; 1 
Thess. ii. 17 ; also rpdc¢ piav porgv, ‘in one moment,” Wisd. xviii. 12 ; xpdc 
ddiyov, mpd¢e Bpayt, and the like. — cifauev] namely, I and Barnabas and 
Titus. — 7H trorayi | belongs not to dcaveivy (Matthias), an inverted arrange- 
ment which would be without motive, but to cifauev, beside which it stands: 
‘through the obedience claimed by the false brethren,” that is, by render- 
ing to them the obedience which they desired. On the matter itself, see Acts 
xv. 1, 5. Matthies regards 77 irorayf as an appositional explanation of oic.® 
But the yielding takes place not to the obedience, but to the demand (77 
évroay). Fritzsche correctly takes it in an ablative sense, but explains, ‘eo 
obsequio praestito, quod apostoli postularent,” ‘such obedience being af- 
forded as the apostles demanded.” But in combination with oic . 
eigauev, and with iva yuac Katadov4. preceding, it would not occur to the 
reader to think of anything else than the obedience claimed by the werdad2- 
dot. Besides, it was not the apostles at all who demanded the circumcision 
of Titus, but (see on ver. 3) Christians at Jerusalem, acting on the instiga- 
tion of the evdadeAgor, so that these latter would have been obeyed by the 
circumcision in question. Comp. the state of matters at Acts xxi. 21. 
Holsten, without any indication of support in the context, interprets : ‘ by 
the subordination to the doxoivtec, Which had been demanded by the false 
brethren.” Lastly, Hermann (who is followed by Bretschneider), entirely in 
opposition to the context, explains it, ‘‘quibus ne horae quidem spatium 
Jesu obsequio segnior fui,” ‘‘than whom I was more slow in obedience to 
Jesus not even for the space of an hour. —ive 7 aAgOera «.7.2.] Object of this 
non-compliance at that time, which, although in the nature of the case it 
concerned Pauline Christians generally, is represented concretely as refer- 
ring to the Galatians: ‘‘in order that the truth of the gospel may abide with 
you ; in order that by our conduct the principle of Christian freedom should 
not be shaken, and ye should not be induced to deviate from the truth, 
which forms the subject-matter of the gospel (ver. 14 ; Col. i. 5), by mixing 
it up with Mosaism” (comp. érepov evayyéAtov, i. 6). A purpose, therefore— 
and this the readers were intended to feel—to which their present apostasy 

1 Comp. vi. 12 f. (Hilgenfeld in his Zettschr. 1860, p. 121). 


2 Paul was therefore by no means “‘ nearly 3 As to this usage, see Fritzsche, Diss. in 
compelled to haye Titus circumcised” 2 Cor. Ii. p. 135 f. 


64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


entirely ran counter !— pic tuac] as rpd¢ airéy, i. 18, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7; 
here also it is not the with of simple rest, but expresses the relation of an 
active bearing on life ; Bernhardy, p. 265. Besides, Paul might justly say 
mpo¢ buac, as the Galatians were for the most part Gentile Christians, and in 
that opposition to the false brethren it was the freedom of the Gentile Chris- 
tians which he sought to maintain. “The iyac individualizes the readers of 
the letter (iii. 26, iv. 6 ; Col. i. 25 ; Eph. iii. 2, and frequently). The ref-~ 
erence to the yet wneonverted Gentiles, whom the truth of the gospel had 
still to reach (xpi¢ tua), as suggested by Hofmann,’ is in complete -opposi- 
tion to the text.—dcayeivy | permaneret, ‘might continue ;” denoting the abiding 
continuance, The truth which they have received was not again to be lost. 
Heb. i. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 4 ; Luke xxii. 8; and frequently in Greek authors. 


Note.—As by the wevdadeAgor (vv. 4, 5) cannot be meant the Judaizers at work 
among the Galatians (which is assumed by Fritzsche entirely in opposition to 
the connection), but only the same persons mentioned in Acts xv. 1, 5; they 
cannot be described as false brethren in relation to any one particular church (e.g. 
to the church of Antioch, into which they had crept from Jerusalem, as Baur 
and Reiche think). On the contrary, the general form of their antagonism, vy. 
4, 5, as well as the further account in vv. 7-10, and the whole argument of the 
epistle, admit only of one point of view,—that the apostle, out of the certainty 
of the a/7Geva Tov evayyediov, styles them false brethren in relation to Christianity 
generally, of which they had, as regards their Judaizing character and action 
looked at from a Pauline standpoint, falsely pretended to be professors. This 
does not in itself exclude the fact that they had come from Jerusalem to Anti- 
och (Acts xy. 1). The inflexible opposition offered to them by the apostle in 
Jerusalem doubtless contributed much to the bringing about of the apostolic 
decree. Comp. Marcker, l.c. p, 539. [See Note XXXIII., p. 96.] 


Ver. 6. Paul having described in vv. 3-5 the momentous result of his 
relations towards the Christians in Jerusalem (airvoic, ver. 2), now passes on 
(corresponding to the xa7’ idiay dé Toi¢g doxovor, Ver. 2) to his relations towards 
the apostles, explaining that the same result had then followed his discus- 
sions with them. — The construction is anacoluthic. For when the apostle 
wrote amd dé tov doxoivtwy eivai tt, he intended subsequently to finish his 
sentence with oidév éAaBov, oddév édidaxOnv, ‘*I received nothing, I was taught 
nothing,” or something of that kind; but by the intervening remarks 
éroiol rote . . . Aauaver he was completely diverted from the plan which 
he had begun, so that now the thought which floated before his mind in 
ard dé tov dokobvtwr civai te is no longer brought into connection with these 
words, but is annexed in the form of a ground (yap) to rpécwrov Cede avOpd- 
rov ov AauBaver ; and this altered: chain of thought occasions éuoi to be now 
placed emphatically at the beginning. Properly speaking, therefore, we 
have here a parenthesis beginning with dézoio., which, without any formal 
conclusion, carries us back again by éwoi ydp x.r.2. to the main thought, 
leaving the words ard 62 tév doxotytwv eivai te entirely unconnected, and 


1 Comp. Windischmann. 


CHAP, Im”, 6 65 


merely pointing back by means of oi doxoivrec, as by a guide-post, to that 
abandoned commencement of the sentence. For it is only in substance, 
and not in form, that the parenthesis is concluded with AauBdvec. Comp. 
Rom. v. 12 ff. ; Eph. ii. 1 ff. An anacoluthon is also assumed by Erasmus, 
Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius 3 Lapide, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Koppe, 
Rosenmiiller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Hilgenfeld, Eadie, and others ; so that—according to the usual 
view (Wiescler takes the correct one)—with éuoi yap «.7.4. Paul again takes 
up the thread of the discourse which had broken off with ard dé doxotyrwr 
elvai v1, and merely continues it actively instead of passively (Winer, p. 529). 
But this is opposed both by éwoi, which logically would not be in its proper 
place at the head of the resumed sentence, and also by yép, which does not 
correspond to the mere inguam, ‘‘I say” (ov, dé), after parentheses, but in 
the passages concerned’ is to be taken as explaining or assigning a reason. 





Hermann makes out an aposiopesis, so that quid metuerem ? ‘‘ what was I to 
fear ?” has to be supplied after dzd. . . elvai rv.? But this is not suggested 
by the context, nor is it permitted by the tranquil flow of the discourse, in 
which no such emotion as warrants an aposiopesis is discoverable. Fritzsche 
supplies the very same thing which in ver. 4 was to be supplied after wev- 
dadéAgovc, making Paul say, ‘‘a@ viris autem (nempe), qui auctoritate valerent 
[circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit],” ‘‘but by the men who 
had influence [he did not allow the necessity of circumcision to be imposed 
on himself].” But however easy and natural this supplement was in ver. 4 
after pevdadéAgovc, because it was suggested as a matter of course by the 
words immediately preceding, in the present case it appears both harsh and 
involved, as the whole body of ideas in vv. 4, 5 intervenes and hinders the 
reader from going back to that supplement. And how abrupt would be 
the position of the following ézoio: x.r.2. | Lastly, the (erroneous) idea, 
that the apostles had demanded the circumcision of Titus, is thus violently 
imported into the text. Holsten’s involved construction*—according to 
which ad dé rév dox. «.7.A. is to be carried on to ver. 9 in conformity with 





the notion of defiac AauBdavery axd6—is shown by éuol yap x.7.4., where the 
Joxovvrec already reappear, to be an impossible solution of the anacoluthon, 
which even thus is not avoided. The passage is explained without suppos- 
ing either supplement or anacoluthon :—1. Most simply, and without 
violence to the language, by Burk,* making ¢ivai te belong to ovdév por 
dtadéper : ‘* That on the part of those in authority (by their recognition) I am 
something (namely, as respects my outward position), I reckon of no value.” 
But, in reality, Paulattached to his recognition by the original apostles the 
true and great value which it necessarily had for him in confronting his 
opponents ; and hence he very carefully relates it in ver. 7. This interpre- 
tation therefore runs counter to the context.®° 2. Just as little allowable is 


1 Also Rom. xv. 27; 1 Cor. ix. 19. 3 2, Huang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 273 f. 

2 Comp. Day. Schulz, who believes that 4In the Stud. wu. Krit. 1865, p. 734 ff. 
quidnam tandem adversus me actum est ? 5 Comp. also, against it, Mareker in Stud. 
‘“what pray was done against me?” is sup- u. Arit. 1866, p. 532 ff. 
pressed. 


Oo 


2 


66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


it? to connect aro dé r. dox. é. r. with the words preceding, ‘‘ but certainly 
(this enduring confirmation of Christian freedom was only possible) through 
the authority of the doxovrte¢ eivai tu.” But to the signification of amé, from 
the side of, a sense would thus be arbitrarily ascribed, which is not justified 
by passages such as Matt. xvi. 21, and must have been expressed by some 
such explanatory addition as in Acts ii. 22. It was impossible also for 
Paul—above all in this epistle—to conceive the maintenance of the truth of 
his Gentile gospel as conditional on the authority of the original apostles. 
Lastly, instead of the sentence which next follows asyndetically (ézotoz 
k.T.4.), we should expect an emphasized antithesis (such as GAA’ éroioz x.T.2.). 
3. The Greek Fathers and Castalio, Calovius, Zachariae, Bolten, Borger, and 
others, interpret the passage, ‘‘ But as regards those of repute, it is one and 
the same thing to me,” etc., by which, however, az6 is quite in violation of 
language interchanged with zep/. So also Riickert,’? who at the same time 
wishes to preserve for azé its due signification (‘‘on the part of any one, it 
makes no difference to me ; that is, what concerns him, is quite indifferent 
to me”), without authority, however, from any actual linguistic usage. 
4, Following Homberg, Ewald understands it as if it stood répv dé doxod- 
prov. . . ovdev diadépw, ‘* But compared with those who, etc., however high 
they once stood, Zam in nothing inferior.” 5, Hofmann ® brings azé dé rév 
Soxovrtuwv eivai te (ard, from the side of ) into regimen with ver. 9, and in such 
a manner that the three doxovvtec oriA0 eivas in ver. 9 are supposed to form 
the subject of the period beginning with azo «.7.2. in ver. 6 ; but this mode 
of construction is decisively condemned by its very inherent monstrosity, 
with its parentheses inserted one within another ; and besides this, the repe- 
tition of oi doxovvrec in ver. 6 would be entirely without aim and simply 
perplexing, if the continuation of the construction as regards a7é 0.7. 0. €. T. 
were still to follow, as is supposed by Hofmann. Nevertheless, Laurent* 
has agreed with the latter, but has at the same time arbitrarily removed 
from the disjointed construction ézoio: . . . tovvavriov as a marginal note of 
the apostle, —another expedient, whereby a4/a robvartiov, so violently dealt 
with by Hofmann, finds the connection with idévrec, which it evidently has 
(see below) dissevered.— On doxeiv eivai 71, Which may mean either ¢o 
reckon oneself tobe something great, or to be esteemed great by others (so here), 
see Wetstein.® The same persons are meant who are referred to in ver. 2 
by roic doxovor. But the addition of 7 eiva:, and the droite: x.t.A. which 
follows, betray here a certain irritation in reference to the opponents, who 
would not concede to Paul an estimation equal to that given to the original 
apostles, as 1f elvai te belonged pre-eminently to the latter. — éoioi rore joav] 
Now come the parenthetical remarks, on account of which Paul leaves his 








1 With Méarcker. Cyr. iv.'1. 4. 

2Comp Olshausen, who, however, as- 3 Comp. above, against Holsten. 
sumes that in using avo Paul had at first 4 neut. Stud. p. 29f. 
some other phrase in his mind, but that he 5 Comp. Plat. Huthyd. p. 303 C, Trav modAA@v 
afterwards inexactly followed it up with avipuTwv Kat Tov cenvav dy Kat SoxovyTwY TL 
ovdév wor dSuadeper. In all essential points Mat- civac ovdév vury méder,** forthe many men,both 


thias agrees with Riickert, as does also as well as for the revered and those seeming 
Reithmayr, who improperly compares Xen. to be something, you have no concern.” 


CHAPS E,,.6. 67 


aro d& tov dok. civai te standing alone, but which he introduces, lest the 
high estimation of those apostles—which in itself, according to the real 
(and by him undisputed) circumstances of the case, he by no means calls in 
question—should lead to the inference that he had needed instruction from 
them. Comp. the subsequent éuoi yap oi do. oidév xpocaré#., and the thought 
already floating before the apostle’s mind in the anacoluthic ad dé trav 
Soxobvtwv elvai te (see above). Wieseler affirms too generally, that ‘‘ Paul 
desired to check the ovérvaluing of the older apostles.” The real state of 
the case is this : Paul, with all decision, in order to counterbalance that 
doxeiv eivai tc of those men of high standing which he does not dispute, 
throws into the scale his own independence of them. And the weight of 
this counterbalancing lies precisely in déroioi wore jay, so far as the latter 
belongs to ovdéy wor diagdéper, and is not, as Hofmann will have it, an appen- 
dage to tov doxovvtwy eivai tt. — The roré, with a direct or indirect interroga- 
tive, is the strengthening cunque or tandem which occurs constantly in 
Greek authors,’ although not elsewhere in the N. T.? Whosoever they were, 
in whatsoever high repute they stood® while I was then with them, é¢ is all 
the same tome. Riickert makes droio: mean, ‘‘ whether high or low, apostles 
or what else ;” holding that Paul speaks intentionally in an indefinite way 
of these men in high repute, as if he did not exactly know that they were 
apostles (?), in order to give the less offence in what he said. How strange 
this would be ! for every reader knew whom he meant. And how unsuit- 
able to his purpose ! for what Paul desires to tell, is the recognition he 
received from the apostles. Many refer éroiorore joav back to the lifetime 
of Jesus, when those apostles had been His trusted disciplés : some taking 
moré as olim;* and others, with us, as ewngve.° But in the case of James (see 
on ver. 9) this reference would not be even historically applicable, or it 
would need at least to be applied to a different kind of relation (that of 
kinship). And besides, there is nothing at all to indicate any such retro- 
spective reference to that remote past ; the context points merely to the 
time of Paul’s sojourn in Jerusalem. Hence also it must not, with others 
still, be referred to—what was quite foreign to the apostle’s aim—the pre- 
Christian condition of the apostles, in which they had been sinners,’ or 
idiora, and jishermen,® zoré being likewise understood as olim. * —oidév pot 
diapéper| matters to me nothing.” — rpdcwrov Oed¢ avOpdrov ov AauBdver| WS 19 


1 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 

2 Comp. 2 Mace. xiv. 32; see also Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. Il. p. 615 f. 

3 Not: how friendly and brotherly they 
were towards me (Matthias), to which 
meaning ovdév por dtadeper is far from suited. 

4 Vulgate, Jerome, Pelagius, Luther, 
Beza, and others, including Matthies, 
Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
Ewald. 

> Quiqui illi fuerunt, etiam si ab ipso 
Jesu instituti, perinde est,” ‘‘ Whoever they 
were, even though appointed by Jesus 
Himself, it is the same,’? Hermann; comp. 


Winer. 

6 See Hilgenfeld. 

7 Estius ; comp. Augustine. 

8 Ambrose, Thomas, Cajetanus, Cornelius 
a Lapide, and others. 

* Tt was entirely in opposition to the con- 
text, that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and 
Jerome referred it to the earlier feaching of 
the apostles; taking Paul to say, that 
whether at an earlier date they had been 
Judaizers or not was to him a matter of in- 
difference. 

10 See Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. p. 294; Lo- 
beck, ad Phryn. p. 394. 


68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


NRW) DTN, an asyndetic, and thereby more forcible and weighty, state- 
ment of the reason for oidév poe diagéper.' DID SWI, rpdowrov AauBaverr, 
properly, to accept the countenance of any one (not to dismiss), is used in the 
O. T. both in a good (to be inclined, or gracious, to any one, Gen. xix. 21, 
Xxxll. 21, et al.) and in a bad sense, implying a favor and respect which is 
partial, determined by personal considerations.* In the N. T. dt is used 
solely in this bad sense.* The transposed arrangement of the words lays the 
chief emphasis upon rpécwrov, and then by O¢dc avfpeorov makes us sensible of 
the contrast between the manner and dignity of the divine procedure and — 
such partiality for hwman authority.* — éuoi yap of doxoivrec ovdév rpocavéberto] 
Proof, not of his independence of the apostles generally, but specially for 
what he had just said, rpécwrov Occ avip. ov AauBaver, from personal experi- 
ence. Hence éusi is emphatically placed first : ‘‘for to me, for my part— 
although others may have received instruction from them, to me—they have 
communicated nothing.” Paul’s idea therefore is, that if God had been 
partial, He would not have placed him on such parity with the dorover, that to 
him, etc. Riickert, wrongly anticipating, says that the prefixed éuoi finds 
its antithesis in ver. 11: ‘‘to me they have communicated nothing, ete. ; 
but indeed, when Peter came to Antioch, J was compelled to admonish 
him.” But in this case, at least ver. 11 must have begun with éy dé or aAw’ 
éyo. According to Wieseler, Paul in évoi is thinking of ‘‘to me, the former 
persecutor,” an idea gratuitously introduced. In Hofmann’s view the antith- 
esis is intended to be, that not to him from the others was anything sub- 
mitted, but the converse.© But if this were so, Paul must have written ov 
yap éuol x.7.2., just as afterwards a42a roivavtiov abroi k.t.A., In order to have 
given at least a bare indication of this alleged antithesis. — oddév rpocavé- 
Gevro] quite as in i. 16 (comp. also Hofmann): they addressed no communica- 
tions* to me, namely, in order to instruct and advise me,—a sense which is 
here also demanded by the context ; see the sequel, and comp. i. 12. It is 
usually understood : oidév rpocénkav, ovdév diapOwoar, ‘they added nothing ; 
they corrected nothing” (Chrysostom), ‘‘nihililli praesumserunt lis adjicere, 
quae prius a Christo accepta docueram inter gentes,” ‘‘they presumed to 
add nothing to those things which, having formerly received of Christ, I 
had taught among the Gentiles,” Beza.? Comp. Wieseler, Miarcker, and Hil- 


1° Det judicium sequebatur, Paulus,” 7 As also Valla, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, 


“*Paul followed God’s judgment,” Bengel. 

2 Lev. xix. 15; Deut. x. 17, e¢ al. ; Ecclus. 
iv. 27; 3 Esr. iv. 39. 

3 Matt. xxii. 16; Mark xii. 14; Luke xx. 
21; Jude 16. Comp. Acts x. 34; Jas. ii. 9; 
Rom. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 26; Jas. 
1s ae y 

4Comp. Hom. Qd. xix. 363 f., 4 oe epi 
Zevs avdpwrwv AxInpe Seovdéa Fueov ExovTa, 
“‘surely Zeus hated thee above all men, 
though thou hadst a God-fearing spirit.” 

5 Comp. tuvés in Chrysostom, and the Par- 
aphrase of Erasmus. 

6 ‘* Nihil contulerunt,” Vulgate. 


Koppe, Morus, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, 
Matthies, Schott, and others, Baur arbitra- 
rily (I. p. 141, ed. 2) brings in the thought, 
“They have brought forward nothing 
against me, wherein I should have had to 
acknowledge them in the right.” Ovéév is 
made to mean, nothing conclusive and con- 
vincing—nothing whereby they would have 
confuted him and brought him over to their 
side (comp. Baur in the ¢heol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 
463). There is not the most remote allusion 
in the passage to any conflict between Paul 
and the original apostles; on the contrary, 
it implies the complete understanding on 


y 


CHAP UL 7s 69 
genfeld : ‘‘They submitted nothing in addition to that which had been 
submitted by me ; they approved the gospel, which I am preaching among 
the Gentiles.” But zpéc¢ expresses merely the direction, and not insuper 
(see oni. 16). Should avaribyu, however, be understood as to impose, xpéc 
would certainly express the idea novwm opus imponere (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8); 
as Riickert ' explains it, ‘‘ they imposed on me no further obligations,” the ob- 
servance of the law being the point principally alluded to.? But in opposi- 
tion to this view, apart from the fact that it involves a quite needless 
departure from the signification of the same word in i. 16, the circumstance 
is decisive, that rpocavari#nu: in the middle would necessarily mean ‘ susci- 
pere novum opus,” ‘‘ to wndertake a new work,” as Xen. Mem. l.c., and not 
“‘imponere novum opus,” ‘* to impose anew work,” even though the com- 
parison of the apostle’s obligation to a burden (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16 f.) 
should appear sufficiently justified by the legal nature of the matters im- 
posed. — oidév] either the accusative of the object, or more strongly (comp. 
i. 16), in no point, in no respect whatever. The idea that a revelation is 
intended as the contents of zpocar. (Holsten), must be sought for in the 
context : it is not conveyed by the words per se, 

Ver. 7. ’AZAa tovvartiov] to be separated merely by a comma from the 
preceding, being still connected with yap. ‘‘To me they made communica- 
tion of no kind whatever ; but, on the contrary, when they had seen, etc., 
the three pillar-apostles concluded with me and Barnabas the apostolic 
alliance,” etc. (ver. 9). “Hofmann, to force a regimen for a7é rév doxotvTwr 
in ver. 6, very arbitrarily tears asunder the clear and simple connection 
‘which the words obviously present, taking 4224 roivavriov by itself and dis- 
severed from what follows, and supplementing the sense by the insertion, 
‘¢ They have not proposed anything to me, but conversely, I to them.’ But 
this strange ellipsis is a device utterly unprecedented. * — iddvrec] after they 
had seen, namely, from the way in which I xa7’ idiav avebéunv 7d evayy. 6 
Kypvoow év Toi¢ évecr, ‘‘ privately communicated to them the gospel which I 
preach among the Gentiles” (ver. 2). Usteri, ‘‘ from the blessed result of 
my preaching.” So also Rosenmiiller, Winer, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, 
Hofmann ; Riickert, Schott, de Wette, Wieseler, mix the two views ; and 
Fritzsche includes the previous labors of the apostle among the Gentiles, e.g., 
in Tarsus and Antioch, among the grounds of knowledge. But nothing 
beyond what we have just given can be gathered from the context. Eras- 
mus appropriately paraphrases, ‘‘ ubi communicato cum illis evangelio meo 
perspexissent,” ‘‘ when they had perceived upon the communication of my 


both sides, which was the result of the dis- 
cussion. The conflict affected the members 
of the church who were stirred up by the 
WevdddeApo. and the false brethren them- 
selves (vv. 3-5). 

1So also Bretschneider and Lechler, 
p. 412. 

2 Comp. also Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 235. 

3 Comp. on Tovvarriov, 2 Cor. ii. 7, 1 Pet. 
jii. 9; very frequently (also tavaytia) oecur- 


ring in Greek authors (Schaefer, ad Bos, 
Ell. p. 297. 

4 Certainly the aAAa rovvavtiov was, for 
Hofmann at least, the most refractory part 
of the sentence, which had in some sort of 
way to be forcibly torn from its natural 
connection with idovres,—a connection 
justly unassailed by expositors. And he 
has managed it by the device of the above~ 
mentioned ellipsis ! 


70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


gospel with them.”— érz mezior. r. ebayy. T. apoB. «.7.2.] The emphasis is laid 
on Kalo lérpo¢ tHe mepit., as ver. 8 shows. They saw that my having been 
divinely entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles was just such (just as 
undoubted, true, direct, etc.), as was that of Peter for the Jews ; conse- 
quently there could be no question of any zpocavafeiva:, and nothing could 
follow but complete recognition (ver. 9). The construction? in the sense of 
meriotevtai por TO evayy. (as F G, 19*, 46** actually read) is regular ; as to the 
perfect, used of the enduring subsistence of the act.” — ric axpoBvoriac] that 
is, TOv axpoBiotwr, ‘of the circumcised,” * the gospel which belonged to the 
uncircumcised, and was to be preached to them. — xafl&c létpog ti¢ repirop. | 
Thus Peter appears as the representative of the Jewish apostles, in accord- 
ance with his superiority among them.‘ The destination of Peter as an 
apostle to the Gentiles also® is not negatived, but @ potiori jit denominatio. 
— That this passage relates not to two different gospels, but to the same gospel 
for two different circles of recipients, to whose peculiarities respectively the 
nature and mode of preaching required special adaptation, is obvious of it- 
self, and is clear from vv. 8,9. But the passage cannot be worse misunder- 
stood than it has been by Baur,® according to whom there wasa special gos- 
pel of the uncircumcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, differing 
in this respect, that the one maintained the necessity of circumcision, while 
the other allowed it to drop.” 

Ver. 8. A parenthetic historical substantiation of the preceding reicrev- 
pat TO Evayy. THE aKpoB., Kaa Tletp. tH¢ wepiz. : for He who has been efficacious 
Sor Peter as regards the apostleship to the circumcision, has also been efficacious 
Sor me as regards the Gentiles ; that is, ‘‘for God, who has wrought effect- 
ually * in order to make Peter the apostle to the Jews, has also wrought 
effectually for me, to make me an apostle to the Gentiles.” The stress les 
on évepyfjoac and évfpynoe : God [see Note XXXIV., p. 96] has been not in- 
active, but efficacious, etc. But that in 6 évepyjoac Paul did not refer to Christ,° 
is evident not only from passages such as 1 Cor. xii. 6, Phil. i. 13, Col. i. 
29, but also from the fact that he constantly considers his apostleship to be 
the gift of God’s grace, bestowed upon him through the mediation of Christ 
(i. 1, 15 ; Rom. i. 5, xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Eph. iit. 2, 7, e al.). —TMérpp 
is the dativus commodi, ‘‘ dative of advantage.’’!° — ei¢ ta éOvy] in reference to 


1 Comp. Rom. iii. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 17. belonging thereto. It is not the divine 


2 See Winer, p. 255. 

3 Rom. ii. 26, iii. 30 ; Eph. ii. 11. 

4 Matt. xvi. 18 ; Acts ii. ili. iv. v. e¢ al. 

5 Acts xv. 7: 1 Pet... 1. 

® Theol. Jahresbericht, 1849, p. 548. 

7 Comp. Holsten, who discovers the dis- 
tinctive feature of the Gentile gospel in the 
“* gnosis of the death of the cross,’’ in spite 
of 1 Cor. i. 23 f. In opposition to such a 
separation, see also Ritschl, aikath. K. 
p. 127 f. 

8 Namely, by communicating the requi- 
site endowments, enlightenment, strength- 
ening, and generally the whole equipment 


action towards the attainment of the 
arogtoAy (Vatablus, Schott, Fritzsche) that 
is meant, but the making jit for it; the 
attainment was indicated in ver. 7, and is 
substantiated in ver. 8 by the further divine 
action which had taken place. But neither 
are the results of the office, brought about 
by God’s helpful operation, referred to 
(Winer, Usteri, Baur, de Wette, Hofmann), 
which would anticipate the sequel. 

® Paulus, comp. Chrysostom. 

10 Comp. Prov. xxix. 12 (xxxi. 12), accord- 
ing to the usual reading, évepyet yap To avdpi 
els ayata. 


CHAP. II., 9. yal 


the Gentiles. The precise sense follows from the first half of the verse, 
namely, eic arocrodyv tov évdv. The well-known comparatio compendiaria, 
‘‘eompendious comparison.”’ There is therefore the less reason for assum- 
ing that Paul desired to avoid the expression eic azoor. 7. éAvwv.? Observe, 
however, how Paul places himself on a par with Peter ; ‘‘ perfecta aucto- 
ritas in praedicatione gentium,” ‘‘ perfect authority in preaching to the 
Gentiles,” Ambrosiaster. 

Ver. 9. Kai yvévrec] is connected, after the parenthesis, with idévrec¢ x.7.2. 
in ver. 7.2 — rv yap tv dofeicdy jor] is not arbitrarily to be limited either to 
the apostolic office,* or to the success of the same ;° but is to be left quite general : 
the grace which had been given me. They recognized that Paul was highly 
gifted with grace, and was—by the fact that God had so distinguished him 
by means of His grace and thereby legitimized him as His apostle—fully 
fitted and worthy to enter into the bond of collegiate fellowship with them. 
His apostolic mission, his apostolic ecdowments, the blessed results of his 
labor, are all included in the ydapic which they recognized,—a general term 
which embraces everything that presented itself in him as divinely-bestowed 





grace and working on behalf of his office. — ’Iaxwoc] the same as in i. 19 ; 
not the brother of John (Augustine), who at that time had been long dead 
(Acts xii. 2) ; also not the son of Alphaeus ;° but the brother of the Lord, as is 
The mention of 
his name here before the other two is not in compliance with the view of 
the false teachers,* but is quite in due form, as the apostle is relating an 
official act done in Jerusalem, where James stood at the head of the church.’ 
There isacertain decorum in this—the tact of a respectful consideration tow- 
ards the mother-church and its highly-esteemed representative, who, as 
the Lord’s actual brother, sustained a more peculiar and unique relation to 
Him than any of the twelve. The higher rank possessed by Peter and the 
apostles proper generally as such, is surely sufficiently established by i. 18 f. 
But James, just as the brother of the Lord, had already attained a cer- 
tain archiepiscopal position in the Jewrsh-Christian mother-church, and con- 
sequently for Jewish Christianity generally, agreeably to the monarchic 
principle which was involved in the latter. If James had been precisely 
one of the twelve, Paul would not!" have given him precedence over Peter ; 
for, as mouthpiece of the twelve, Peter was the first for Jerusalem also and 
for the whole of the Jewish Christians.!! The precedence, however, finds . 


obvious of itself after what has been remarked on i. 19.7 


1See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5.43; Wi- 
ner, p. 578 ; Fritzschiorum, Opusc. p. 217 f. 

2 Holsten. 

3 While iddvres denotes the immediate im- 
pression of the phenomenon, yvovtes repre- 
sents the knowledge of reflection. A further 
step in the description. Hofmann wrongly 
remarks, “It signifies nothing further than 
that they had heard of the occurrence of his 
calling.” But this they must have already 
Known years before (i. 18 f.). 

4 Piscator, Estius, and others; also Hof- 


mann. 

5 Morus, Koppe, Winer, Fritzsche; de 
Wette, both. 

6 Wieseler on i. 19, and in the Stud. u. 
Krit. 1842, p. 95 f. 

7 Comp. on Acts xii. 17. See also Hilgen- 
feld, p. 158 ff. ; and Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. 
Zeit. p. 221 ff. 

8 Windischmann. 

® Comp. Credner, Hint. I. 2, p. 571 ff. 

19 Comp. i. 18. 
11 Ver. 7. 


72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


its explanation and its justification solely in the wnigue personal relation to 
Christ, —which belonged to none of the apostles. James, as the eldest of 
the brethren of the Lord,’ was, as it were, his legitimate hereditary successor 
kava odpka, ‘‘ as to the flesh,” in Israel. — oi doxodvrec orvAor eivar| who pass (not 
passed, see vv. 2, 6) as pillars, namely, of the Christian body, the continued 
existence of which, so far as it was conditioned by human agency (for 
Christ is the foundation), depended chiefly on them. The metaphor? is 
current in all languages.* Looking at the jrequent use of the figure, it can- 
not be maintained that Paul here thought of the body of Christians exactly as 
a temple,* although he certainly regarded it as oixodouy, ‘‘ building.”® These do- 
Kovvrec oTvAo® eivat, according to their high repute now, when the decisive final 
result is brought forward, designated with solemn precision and mentioned by 
name, are the very same who were characterized in ver. 2 as oi doxovvrec, and 
in ver. 6 as doxowvre¢ eivai t7, aS is evident from the uniform term oi doxovvrec 
being used three times. Hofmann nevertheless understands the expression 
in vv. 2 and 6 more generally, so that what the three doxovvtec orvAor eivac did 
is supposed to be designated as that which was done for the sake of the false 
brethren on the part of those standing in special repute ; but this view is based 
on the misinterpretation, by which an awkward grammatical connection 
with ver. 9 is forced upon the anacoluthic a7 dé rev doxovvTwv in ver. 6, and 
at the same time—in the interest of harmonizing (with Acts xv.)—a posi- 
tion in relation to the older apostles, unwarranted by the text, is invented 
to explain the notice dia dé Tove mapeccakt. WevdadéAd. in ver. 4. —deElac.. . 
kotvoviac| On the separation of the genitive from its governing noun (in this 
case, because the following clause of purpose, iva jjueic x.7.4., gives the ex- 
planation of kovvwviac), see Winer, p. 179 f. ; Kiihner, § 865. 1; Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. II. p. 330 f. Both words are without the article, because deEsac did not 
require it ;7 and in xo.wwwviac the qualitative element is to be made prominent : 
right hands of fellowship. For the giving of the right hand is the symbol of 
alliance.* In opposition to the idea of an alliance being concluded, the 
objection must not be made® that the act took place on the part of the 
apostles only ; for, as a matter of course, Pauland Barnabas clasped the prof- 
fered hands. — iva jueic ei¢ Ta eAvy k.t.A.] The verb to be supplied must be 
furnished by the context, and must correspond with eic.” Therefore either 


1 Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3. 

2 Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15; Rey. iii. 12; Clem. 
Cor: T. 5. 

3 Pind. Ol. ii. 146, "Extop’ eopade Tpotas 


II. 1: “Brave peers of England, pillars of 
the state.” Milton, Par. Lost, II. 302: ‘In 
his rising seemed a pillar of state.”’] 

41 Cor: iii. 16; Eph ii: 21° 


auaxov actpaBy xKiova; ‘* Hector, the im- 
pregnable, erect pillar of Troy, he caused to 
fall,” Eur. Jph. 7. 50. 67 (Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
VII. p. 120); Hor. Od. i. 35. 18, and Mitscher- 
lich in loc. Comp. Maimonides, in Jfore 
Nevoch. ii. 23, “* accipe a prophetis, qui sunt 
columna generis humani,” “receive of the 
prophets who are the column of the human 
race ; also the passages in Schoettgen, 
Hor. p. 728f.; and the Fathers in Suicer, 
Thes. 11. p. 1045f. [Shakespeare, Henry VL., 


SHCon ails 

6The accentuation usual before Lach- 
mann, o7vAo, is incorrect. See Lipsius, 
gramm. Unters. p. 48. 

71 Macc. vi. 58, xi. 62, e¢ al.,; Kriiger, 
§ 50. 2. 18. 

® Dougt. Anal. p. 123,1 Mace. vi. 58, and 
Grimm in loc. 

9 With Hofmann, who finds merely a 
promise of fellowship. 

10 See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 338. 


CHAP. OE, 10. "3 


ropevdauev and ropevddor,' or apostolatu fungeremur, ver. 8,? or ebay- 
yediooueba.® The latter, inno way unsuitable to eic,+is to be preferred, because 
it is suggested immediately by the protasis in ver. 7, from which, at the 
same time, it isevident that the recognition was not merely that of a cuvepyéc, 
but really amounted to an acknowledgment of apostolic equality.° Moreover, 
as regards the partition here settled, the ethnographical bearing of which 
coincided on the whole with the local division of territory, we must not supply 
any such qualification as praecipue.* On the contrary, the agreement was, 
“¢ Ye shall be apostles to the Gentiles, and we to the Jews ;” and nothing beyond 
this, except the appended clause in behalf of the poor, was thereby settled : 
so that the state of things hitherto existing in respect to the field of labor 
on both sides remained undisturbed. The modifications of this arrangement 
obviously and necessarily connected with its practical working, primarily 
occasioned by the existence of the Jewish d:acropa4—in accordance with 
which the principle of the division of the spheres of labor could in fact be 
carried out merely relatively, and without exclusive geographical or 
ethnographical limitation’—were left an open question, and not discussed. 
The idea that the recognition of Paul on the part of the apostles was 
merely external—simply an outward concordat—and that they themselves 
would have wished to know nothing of the ministry among the Gentiles,® 
is not conveyed in the text, but is, on the contrary, inconsistent with the 
representation given vv. 7-9. According to this, the apostles recognized 
the twofold divine call to apostleship, by which two nationally different 
spheres of labor were to be provided with the one gospel ; but a merely 
external and forced agreement, without any acknowledgment or ratification 
of the principles and modes of procedure which had long regulated the 
action of Paul and Barnabas, would have been as little compatible with 
such a recognition as with the apostolic character generally. If, however, 
we take the xowvia in our passage to be true and heartfelt,® then the doubts 
thrown by Baur and his followers upon the truth of the account of the 
apostolic council in Acts fall in substance to the ground. How little Paul 
especially considered his apostolic call to the Gentiles as excluding the con- 
version of the Jews from his operations, may be gathered, even laying Acts 
out of view, from passages such as 1 Cor. ix. 20, Rom. i. 16, ix. 1 ff., xi. 14. 

Ver. 10. After wévov interpreters usually supply a verb such as airowrtec, 
“asking,” or rapaxadovvrec, ‘‘ demanding,” which in itself would be allow- 





able,”® but is nevertheless quite superfluous ; for pévov tov rTwyov iva wn. Ap- 
pears dependent on defvac édaxav éot kai Bapv. xowv., So that it is parallel with the 
preceding iva and limitsit. Comp. Matthies, Fritzsche, Hofmann. ‘‘ They 
made with us a collegiate alliance, to the end that we should be apostles 


° 


1 Bengel, Fritzsche, Wieseler. * Thiersch (Kirche im apost. Zeit. p. 129) 
2 Erasmus, Schott, and many others. well remarks: ‘‘ When they bade farewell, 
3 Winer, Usteri, de Wette. it was not a parting like that when Luther 
4 See on 2 Cor. x. 16. in the castle at Marburg rejected the hand 
5 In opposition to Holsten. of Zwingli, or when Jacob Andreae at 
® Bengel, Schott, and others. Montbeliard refused that of Theodore 
7 Comp. Lechler, p. 415. Beza.” 


= Baur, Zeller. 10 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 207 f. 


74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


to the Gentiles; . . . only that we should not omit to remember the poor 
of the repitouy (not merely of the mother-church) as to support.” In that 
alliance nothing further, im respect to our relation to the repitoph, was 
designed or settled. On yvjuoveterr in the sense of beneficent care, comp. Ps. 
ix. 12 ; Hom. Od. xviii. 267. —:6vorv, which belongs to the whole clause, 
and tov zrwyov stand before iva on account of the emphasis laid upon them. 
The poverty of the Christians ef Palestine, which was the principal motive 
for this provision being added, finds its explanation in the persecutions 
which they underwent, in the community of goods which they had at first, 
and perhaps also in the expectation of the Parousia as near which they most 
of all cherished. Moreover, the wévov x.7.A. by no means excludes the ordi- 
nances of the apostolic council, for Paul here has in view nothing but his ree- 
ognition as apostle on the part of the original apostles in the private discus- 
sions held with the latter. How Baur misuses pévov «.7.2., as contrasted 
with the supposed irreconcilable diversity subsisting in doctrine, may be seen 
in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 470; Paulus, I. p. 142 ff. ed. 2; comp. also 
Holsten. In the face of real antagonism of doctrine, the older apostles cer- 
tainly would not have tendered Paul their hands ; and had they desired to 
do so, Paul would have refused them his.? [See Note XXXV., p. 96.]— 
6 kat éorovdaca aid TovTo Torqoar| The aorist, not used instead of the pluper- 
fect, relates to the time from that apostolic alliance to the composition of 
the epistle. Paul, however, continues in the singular ; for soon afterwards 
he separated himself from Barnabas (Acts xv. 39). Those*who identify our 
journey with that related in Acts xi. xii. must conclude, with Fritzsche, that 
Paul desired to report concerning himself, and hence only mentioned Barnabas 
(and Titus) as well, where it was necessary. Nevertheless this joint-mention, 
although not necessary, would have been very natural in our passage ; for 
iva pvnuovetouev had just been said, and then in a single stroke of the repre- 
sentation, with 6 kai éorovdaca k.7.2., 18 given the conclusion of the matter so 
referred to. —avrd rovro] is not superfluous,* as neither aizé alone’ nor rovre 
alone® is used ; it is the emphatic epexegesis of 6, hoc ipsum,? ‘‘ this very thing,” 
whereby Paul makes his readers feel the contrast between the Jewish Chris- 
tian antagonism and his zeal of love thus shown. Studer and Usteri find in 
avré rovro the tacit antithesis, ‘‘ but nothing further which the apostles had 
imposed on me.” Inappropriately, for the idea of any other matters imposed 
was already excluded by the previous account. Schott proposes to take’ 
6 as dv 6,° but the assumption of this poetical use cannot be justified except 
by a necessity such as is presented to us in the N. T. only at Acts xxvi. 16. 


1 Comp. on Eph. iii. 18; 1 Cor. vii. 29; 
2 Cor. ii. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 7, e¢ al. 

2 Tertullian (de praescr. 23) already gives 
the right view: “inter se distributionem 
oficit ordinaverant, non separationem evan- 
geltti, nee ut alivd alter, sed ut ailiis alter 
praedicarent,”’ ‘‘ They arranged among one 
another a distribution of office, not a separa- 
tion of the Gospel; nor so that one would 
preach one thing, and another, another, 


but so that one would preach to some, 
and another to others.” 

3 So, correctly, Estius, Winer, Usteri, 
Schott. 

4 Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Morus. 

5 Winer. p. 140. 

6 See Matthiae, p. 1050; Kiihner, II. p. 527. 

7 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. LIL. 

8 See on Acts xxvi. 16. 


Gras ite, 11; 5 


Still more easily might aird rovro be explained’ as on that very account (2 Pet. 
i.5; Xen. Anad. i. 9. 21). But in that case 6 would so naturally take up 
what preceded, that there would be no reason why Paul should have 
brought on that very account so prominently forward. It would rather have 
the appearance of suggesting that, if it had not been for the agreement in 
question, Paul would noé have cared for the poor. — We have no historical 
vouchers for the truth of 6 kai éorotdaca x.t.2. ; for the conveyance of the 
contributions in Acts xi. took place earlier than our journey ; and the col- 
lection mentioned 1 Cor. xvi., 2 Cor. viii. f., Rom. xv. 27, comp. Acts xxi. 
17 f., xxiv. 17, occurred after the composition of our epistle. But who would 
doubt that assurance ? Looking at the more or less fragmentary accounts in 
Acts and the Pauline epistles, who knows how often Paul may have sent 
pecuniary assistance to Palestine ? as indeed he may have brought the like 
with him on occasion of his own journey, Acts xviii. 20-22. It has, however, 
been wrongly asserted that, by means of this obligation in respect to the 
poor, a connection was intended to be maintained between the Gentile 
churches and the primitive church, and that at the bottom of it lay the wish 
to bring over the preliminarily converted Gentiles gradually more and more to 
the principles and the mode of life of the primitive church.? This is an insin- 
uation derived from mere fancy. [See Note XXXVL., p. 96 seq. | 

Ver. 11. Paul now carries still further the historical proof of his apostolic 
independence; ‘‘ ad summa venit argumentum,” ‘the argument has come to 
the height,” Bengel. For not only has he not been instructed by the apostles ; 
not only has he been recognized by them, and received into alliance with 
them ; but he has even asserted his apostolic authority against one of them, 
and indeed against Peter. There is no ground in the text for assuming 
(with Hofmann) any suspicion on the part of the apostle’s opponents, that 
in Antioch he had been defiant, and in Jerusalem submissive, towards Peter. 
— bre dé 7A0e Knoac x.r.4.] After the apostolic conference, Paul and Barnabas 
travelled back to Antioch, Acts xv. 30. During their sojourn there (Acts 
xv. 33) Peter also came thither,—a journey, which indeed is not mentioned 
in Acts, but which, just because no date is given in our passage, must be 
considered as having taken place soon after the matters previously related.® 
—Ky~ac| The opinion deduced from the unfavorable tenor of this narrative, 
as bearing upon Peter, by Clement of Alexandria,‘ that the person meant is 


1 Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1.21; Matthiae, 
p. 1041; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 204 A. 
2 Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 141. 

3 Not so late as Acts xviii. 23, as held by 
Neander, Baumgarten, Lange; and by 
Wieseler, in favor of his view that the jour- 
ney Gal. ii. 1 coincides with that of Acts 
Xviii. 22. Grotius, although he considers 
the journey Gal. ii. 1 as identical with that 
in Acts xy., strangely remarks: ‘* Videtur 
significare id tempus, de quo in Act. xiii. 1,” 
“He seems to indicate the time treated in 
Acts xiii.1. Also Hug and Schneckenburger, 
Zweck d. Apostelg. p. 108 ff., place the occur- 


rence at Antioch earlier than the apostolic 
council,—a view which, according to the 
chronological course of Gal. i. ii., is simply 
an error; in which, however, Augustine, 
ep. 19 ad Hieron., had preceded them.— 
Whether, moreover, Peter then visited the 
church at Antioch for the first time (Thiersch, 
Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 432) must be left 
undecided ; but looking at the length of 
time during which this church had already 
existed, it is not at all probable that it was 
his first visit. 
4 Ap. Huseb. i. 12. 


76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


not the apostle, who certainly in this case is far from corresponding to his 
destination as ‘‘ the rock ” of the church, but a certain Cephas, one of the 
seventy disciples, has been already refuted by Jerome, and also by Gregory, 
Hom. 18 in Hz. — kata rpdowrov| To his face Lopposed him. See Actsiii. 18 ; 
often in Polybius.’ The opinion of Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
several Fathers, that the contention here related was nothing more than a 
contention in semblance (kata mpécwrov = secundum speciem ! ‘‘ in appear- 
ances”’), is only remarkable as a matter of history.* — 67 kateyvwopévoc qv] not 
‘quia reprehensibilis or reprehendendus erat,” ‘‘ because he was blameworthy or 
to be blamed ;”* for the Greek participle is never used, like the Hebrew, for 
the verbal adjective,‘ neither in Jude 12, Rev. xxi. 8, nor in Hom. JJ, i. 
388, xiv. 196, xvili. 427 ; and what a feeble, unnecessary reason to assign 
would be 6rz kateyvwopuévoc 7v in this sense ! Moreover, xatayeyveokew tiva,° 
so far as its significations are relevant here, does not mean reprehendere, ‘‘ to 
blame,” at all, but either to accuse, which here would not go far enough, or 
condemnare, ‘to condemn.” Hence also it is not : guia reprehensus or accusatus 
erat, ‘‘ because he was blamed or accused,’’’ but : guia condemnatus erat, 
‘¢ because he was condemned,” whereby the notorious certainty of the offence oc- 
casioned is indicated, and the stringent ground for Paul’s coming forward 
against him is made evident. Peter, through his offensive behavior, had 
become the object of condemnation on the part of the Christians of Antioch ; 
the public judgment had turned against him ; and so Paul could not keep 
silence, but was compelled to do what he certainly did with reluctance. 
The passive participle has not a vis reciproca, ‘‘reciprocal force ;”* the condem- 
nation of Peter was the act of the Christian publicin Antioch. The idea “‘ con- 
victed before God” (Ewald) would have been eapressed, if it had been so 
meant. If the condemnation is understood as having ensued through his own 
mode of action,® the question as to the persons from whom the condemnation 
proceeds is left unanswered. [See Note XXXVII., p. 97.] 

Ver. 12 ff. Paul now relates the particulars of the occurrence. —aré 
"Tax&Bov| sent by James. It belongs to éadeiv.° Why they—and, to judge from 


1Comp. «ar ofdadpovs, Herod. i. 120; Apol. adv. Rufin. iii. 1. See Mohler, gesam- 


Xen. Hievo, 1, 14: Gal. iii. 1; and car’ oupa, 
Eur. 2hes. 421, Bacch. 469. Not coram omni- 
bus, ‘before all’? (Erasmus, Beza, Vata- 
blus), which is not expressed until ver. 14. 
2 A contest arose on this point between 
Jerome and Augustine. The former char- 
acterized the reprehensio in our passage as 
dispensatoria, so contrived by Peter and 
Paul, in order to convince the Jewish Chris- 
tians of the invalidity of the law, when they 
should see that Peter had the worst of it 
against Paul. Augustine, on the contrary, 
asserted the correct sense, and maintained 
that the interpretation of Jerome intro- 
duced untruth into the Scriptures. See 
Jerome, Hp. 86-97; Augustine, Hp. 8-19. 
Subsequently Jerome gaye up his view 
and adopted the right one. ¢. Pelag. i. 83 


melte Schriften, I. p. 1 ff. 

3 Vulgate, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Corne- 
lius X Lapide, Elsner, Wolf, and others ; 
also Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Matthies. 

4 Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 791 ; Ewald, p. 588. 

5 Not to be confounded with xaray. tevos 
qt, aS is done by Matthias. 

6 Comp. 1 John iii. 20, 21; Ecclus. xiv. 2, 
> ab. i) 

7 Ambrose, Luther, Estius, and others ; 
also Winer, Schott, de Wette. 

8 Bengel, comp. Riickert, ‘‘ because he 
had an evil conscience.” 

9 Bengel, Lechler, p. 423 ; comp. Windisch- 
mann and Hofmann. 

10 Comp. Plat. Prot. p. 309 B, am’ éxetvov 
épxouar: Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark y. 35 ; 1 Thess. 
iii. 6. 


CHAPS 14 ,~ 12% care 


the impression made upon Peter, they were certainly men of importance, 
strict in their Jewish-Christian observances—were sent to Antioch by James, 
we know not, any more than why Peter journeyed thither.’ But the con- 
jecture that they belonged to the wevdadeAgo of ver. 4 (Winer, Schott), con- 
flicts directly with the fact, that they were sent by James: for at the 
apostolic conference the latter had nowise made common cause with the 
wevdddergoe ; and therefore in sending any ef them to Antioch he would have 
acted very unwisely, or would, with reactionary intent, * have simply supplied 
new fuel to the scarcely settled controversy. Others,’ connecting the 
words with rivdc, understand adherents ef James,‘ or, as Winer (comp. Wolf) 
says, ‘‘ qui Jacobi auctoritate sive jure seu secus utebantur,” ‘‘ who availed 
themselves of the authority of James either justly or otherwise ;” but this 
brings upon James the designation of a party-chief (some Jacobites !), which 
would be neither necessarily nor wisely introduced here, even supposing 
Winer’s modification to be mentally supplied. Lastly, the explanation of 
Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius (following Chrysostom), that 
ard "laxo3ov means nothing more than from Jerusalem, because James was 
the president of the church there,* is an unauthorized setting aside of the 
person, who is named expressly and not without due reason. — pera tov 
évav cuvfobiev| he joined in meals with the Gentile Christians.’ Notice the 
imperfect. 
ical defilement (Acts xi. 3) ; but Peter, who previously by special revelation 
(Acts x. f.), had been instructed as to the invalidity of this separation in 
Christianity, had in the apostolic conference defended Christian freedom 
(Acts xv. 7 ff.), and taken part in passing the decrce that, as regards food, 
the Gentile brethren should only have to abstain from meat offered to idols, 
things strangled, and blood (Acts xv. 29). This decree was received and 


The Jew might not eat with Gentiles without incurring Levit- 


1 The book of Acts is silent both on this 
point and also as to the whole scene be- 
tween Peter and Paul,—a silence indeed, 
which, according to Baur and Zeller, is 
supposed to be maintained intentionally, 
and in consistency with the false represen- 
tation of the transactions in Jerusalem. 
According to Ritschl (alikath. Kirche, p. 
145), they were deputed by James to bring 
the relation between the Jewish and Gen- 
tile Christians back to the rule of the apos- 
tolic decree, as James understood it, that 
is, according to Ritschl, in the sense of a 
retractation of the Jewish-Christian defec- 
tion from the law, and on behalf of restor- 
ing the separation between the two parties 
as respected their customs of eating. This 
assumed task of the tvés is neither in any 
way intimated in the text, nor is therea 
trace of it in Acts (comp., on the contrary, 
xy. 30 ff.). Just as little can it be proved 
that, as Ewald thinks, a decree had been 
passed in the church at Jerusalem that the 
Jewish Christian should refrain from eat- 


ingin company with Gentile Christians (be- 
cause he did not know whether blood or 
something strangled might be among their 
food), and that those t.vés had come to 
Antioch to make known this new decree. 
Hilgenfeld also assumes that those sent by 
James had some charge relating to with- 
drawal from the Gentile Christians. Comp. 
Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 357, in 
whose opinion they were sent after Peter, 
because his intercourse with the Gentiles 
had been notified at Jerusalem. 

2So de Wette, whereby, however, the 
character of James is placed in a very 
awkward position, which is not to be sup- 
ported by Acts xxi. 18. 

3As Studer, Usteri, Zeller. So also 
Voémel, Br. a. d. Gal. mit deutsch. Uebers. u. 
krit. Anm., Frankf. 1865, p. 29. 

4Comp. oi ard UAdtwvos and the like ; 
Schaefer, Melet. p. 26 ff. ; Bernhardy, p. 222. 

6 Comp. Koppe. 

6 Comp. on cvvecOierv in this sense, Plat. 
Legg. ix. p. 881 D; Luke xy. 2; 1 Cor. v. 11. 


‘ 


78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


accepted with joy by the church at Antioch (Acts xv. 30 f.). It would 
therefore have becn all-the easier for Peterin Antioch to follow his divinely 
attained conviction,’ and to take part without hesitation in the more fa- 
miliar intercourse of meals with the Gentile Christians there—free from any 
scruple that he should defile himself by Gentile food, which no legal enact- 
ments restricted except as to those three points. But to this free and cor- 
rect standpoint the stricter Jewish Christians, who were still entangled in 
the observances of the Levitical precepts as to purity (comp. Acts xxi. 
20), had not been able to rise ; and to this class belonged the ruvéc¢ (ver. 12). 
When, therefore, these men arrived from Jerusalem and from James, Peter 
unhappily no longer continued his previous liberal-minded conduct in 
Antioch, but drew back and separated himself from intercourse at meals 
with the Gentile Christians, whereby he gave a practical denial to his better 
conviction. How similar to his conduct in his former denial of the Lord ! 
Calovius, however, justly, in conformity with the temperament of Peter, 
remarks, ‘‘ wna haec fuit Petri actio non habitus,” ‘‘ this was a single action 
of Peter and not a habit.” — doBoiuevog rove éx tepi7. |] By this are meant the 
Jewish Christians generally, as a class, so far as they were represented hy 
those rivéc, who belonged to the stricter school. Peter feared the Jewish- 
Christians’ strictness, displeasure, disapprobation, etc. The explanatory 
gloss of Chrysostom’ favors Peter, quite against the literal sense of the 
words (Matt. x. 26, xiv. 5-; Mark ix. 18; Luke xii. 5; Acts v. 26; Rom. 
xiii. 8). — Observe also, on the one hand, the graphic force of the imperfects 
bréor. and agop., and, on the other hand, the expression of his own bad prec- 
edent, éavrév, which belongs not merely to adép., but also to iréor. (Polyb. 
vii. 17. 1, xi. 15. 2, i. 16. 10) ; he withdrew Aimself, etc., and thereby 
induced his Jewish-Christian associates also to enter on a like course (ver. 
13). It is not, according to the context, correct that these imperfects express 
an enduring separation (Wieseler); the behavior begins when the riwvéc azo 
"Taxi. have come ; it excites the unfavorable judgment of the church, and 
Paul immediately places himself in decided opposition to Peter. The im- 
perfects are therefore the usual adumbrativa, ‘‘ adumbrative ;” they place the . 
withdrawal and separation of Peter, as it were, before the eyes of the readers. 
On the other hand, the cvvurexpi@. which follows is the wider action which 
took place and served further to challenge Paul ; hence the aorist. 

Ver. 13. And the rest of the Jewish Christians also played the hypocrite 
jointly with him—those, namely, living in Antioch, who previously, in har- 
mony with the liberal standpoint which they had already attained to, had 
held fellowship at meals with the Gentile Christians of the place, but now, 
misled by the influential example of Peter, had likewise drawn back. This 


1That the Christian fellowship in meals 
included also the joint observance of the 
_ agapae (which Thiersch, Hilgenfeld, and 
others take to be meant), is obvious. It is 
not, however, expressly denoted by cuvyc- 
Over. , 


2 ob rodTo PoBovmevos mH KivduvEevon, aAd’ iva 


BH arootacw, ‘not apprehending that he 
was incurring danger, but that they might 
apostatize,” comp. Theophylact, “) cxavde- 
AOEvTES AmoTKIpTHTwoL THs mlaTews, “lest 
being offended they might depart from the 
faith,’ which is followed by Piscator, Gro- 
tius, Estius, and others. 


CHAPS Ths: , 79 


was hypocrisy on their part and on Peter's, because, although at the bottom 
of their hearts convinced of Christian freedom, they, from fear of men (ver. 
12), concealed the more liberal conviction of which they were conscious, 
and behaved just as if they entertained the opposite view. It is true that 
the apostolic council had not decided anything as to the conduct of the 
Jewish Christians among Gentile Christians ; but the immorality consisted 
in the inwardly untrue duplicity of their behavior, which was more than a 
mere inconsistency (Baur) of reformed Judaism, conceived by Paul as being 
hypocrisy (Hilgenfeld).*— kai BapvaZ.] even Barnabas, who was my associate 
withal in the apostleship to the Gentiles (ver. 9), and should consequently 
least of all have ventured insincerely to deny the principle of Christian 
freedom, to the disparagement of the Gentile Christians !_ So injurious was 
the effect of Peter’s example !— cvvariyn| was jointly led away (led astray), 
namely, from his own standpoint.* ore with a finite verb, in the secondary 
sentence (comp. John iii. 16), denotes the consequence simply as a fact 
which has occurred.* The infinitive would make the representation subjective 
(the seduction being conceived as a necessary result). —airov| that is, adrov 
Kal Tov Aowrov"Iovd. Itis emphatically prefixed. The dative is instrumental : 
by their hypocrisy, not to their hypocrisy (Luther and others). No one can, 
without wronging Paul in respect to the choice of his strongly inculpating 
expression,‘ either call in question the fact that the conduct of Peter is here 
expressly designated as hypocrisy,? or reduce it to a mere sapposition ; 
although Ritschl, p. 145, is of opinion that the reproach thus used does not 
quite evince a clear and thorough conviction of the rightness of the non- 
Jewish practice. The purposely chosen expression in our passage shows, on 
the contrary, that Peter's conviction, which was well known to Paul, agreed 
with the conviction of Paul himself, although it was hypocritically denied 
by the former. Peter’s ixdxpioic, according to the text, consisted in the 
‘Tovdaitew, to which he had drawn back after his intercourse with the Gen- 
tile Christians, not in his previous fellowship with them, which is alleged 
to have been ‘‘a momentary unfaithfulness to his real conviction.”° And 
the censure which Paul—certainly unwillingly, and with a complete real- 
izing and appreciating of the moral situation to which it has reference— 
has directed against Peter expressly on the ground of hypocrisy,” exhibits 


1The view of Holsten, z. Hv. des Paul. u. 
Petr. p. 357 ff., is similar. — On cvvvuzexpié., 
comp. Polyb. iii. 92. 5, v. 49. 7; Plut. Mar. 
14.17; Joseph. Bell. xy. 7. 5. 

2Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17, Rom. xii. 16, and 
Wetstein in loc. 

3 See Tittmann, Synon. II. p. 70; Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. WI. p. 1012 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 772. 

4 This expression is all the more strictly 
to be understood as it stands, since Paul 
has not anywhere else in his epistles or 
speeches used either the word vroxpivec@at, 
or Uroxpitys, or (with the exception of 1 Tim. 
iv. 2) umoxpiots. He would be the less 
likely to have omitted to weigh the gravity 


of the reproach conveyed in this very word 
otherwise strange to him, especially seeing 
that it was used after so dong a time and 
was directed against Peter. This remark 
also applies in opposition to Schneckenbur- 
ger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 554 f., and 
to Moller on de Wette. 

5 Schwegler, I. p. 129. 

6 Baur, in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 476 ; 
Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld. 

7Not merely (comp. de Wette) on ac- 
count of an easily excusable want of firm- 
ness and clearness in conviction (Bisping), 
or of amomentary throwing of the same 
into the background under pressure of cir- 
cumstances (Reithmayr). Even Erasmus ex- 


2 


80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


plainly the agreement in principle of the personal convictions of the two 
apostles.” 

Ver. 14. "Ore ovK dpborodovar] opAorodeiv,? not preserved elsewhere in Bib- 
lical language, undoubtedly means to be straight-footed, that is, to walk 
with straight feet.* Were used in a figurative sense—as words expressive of 
walking are favorites with Paul in representing ethical ideas*—equivalent 
to acting rightly (with straightness), conducting oneself properly.° It is the 
moral épétne mpazewc,® the opposite of the moral cxodiév," otpeBadv,® yoadr.® 
According to the leaning of Greek authors towards the direct mode of ex- 
pression, the present is quite regular.’ — rpoc tHv aAgé. tov ebayyéA.] mpédc is 
understood as secundum, ‘‘ according to,” by most expositors ;” by others in 
the sense of direction towards the mark,** which would mean, ‘‘ so as to main- 
tain and promete the truth of the gospel.” The former interpretation is to be 
preferred, because it is the more simple and the first to suggest itself, and 
it yields a very suitable sense. Hence : corresponding to the truth, which is 
the contents of the gospel (ver. 5). Certainly Paul never in verbs of walk- 
ing expresses the rule prepositionally by zpéc, but by cara ;* but in this 
passage mpoc x.7.4. isthe epexegesis of dpfac, according to its ethical idea. — 
éurpoobey ravtwv| consequently, not merely between themselves, but im the 
sight of the whole church, although not assembled expressly for this purpose ;° 
Tove auaptavovtac EvOTLOVY TaVTwY E~Eheyye, iva Kal ol Aowrol GbBov Eywor, 
1 Tim. v. 20. ‘‘ Non enim utile erat errorem, qui palam noceret, in secreto 
emendare,” ‘‘it was not advantageous to correct in secret an error which 
injured openly,” Augustine. — ei od 'Iovdaiog imdpyuv x.t.A.] that is, ‘Tf 
thou, although a born Jew, orderest thy mode of living in conformity with 
that of the born Gentiles, ywpi¢ Iovdarkie tapatnphoewc, ‘different from the 
Jewish observance’ (Chrysostom), and not with that of the born Jews—a 
course of conduct, which thou hast just practically exemplified by eating in 
company with Gentile Christians—how comes it to pass that thou (by the ex- 
ample of the wholly opposite conduct which thou hast now adopted since 
the arrival of those rvvéc) urgest the born Gentiles to adopt the custom of 
the born Jews 2?” What a contradiction of conduct is it, thus in one breath 
to live é@v:xo¢ and to urge the é@vy to the ’Iovdaitey |! The present Cie denotes 


dpOoarateivy. The dp0orod@y is not lame 
(xwaAever), but makes tpoxtds opbas Tots moatv, 
Heb. xii. 13. 


erts himself to come at length to the result, 
that ‘“‘ Pauli objurgatio nihil aliud fuit quam 
confirmatio parum adhuc sibi constantium,” 


‘*Paul’s reproof was nothing but an asser- 
tion of the inconsistencies.” 

1 Comp. Wiesinger, de consensu locor. Gal. 
li. ef Act. xv. p. 86; Lechler, p. 426. 

2 Comp. opOoBatetv, Anthol. ix. 11. 4. 

3 Comp. op@dmovs, Soph. Ant. 985; Nicand. 
Alexiph. 419, op@d7o0Ses Batvortes. 

4 Comp. mepuratety, otorxyetv K.T.A. 

5 bpOompayeiv, Aristot. Pol. i. 5. 8. Vul- 
gate, ‘‘recte ambularent.” Hofmann, “to 
stand with straight foot.” But comp. oéumo- 
Setv, dkumodecv, to be swift-footed, that. is, 
swift in running. The standing would prob- 
ably have been expressed, as perhaps by 


6 Plat. Men. p. 97 B. 

7 Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A. 

8 Eeclus. xxxvi. 25. 

® Heb. xii. 13. 

10 See Kiihner, § 846. 

112 Cor. y. 10; Luke xii. 47; Bernhardy, 
p. 265. 

12 Including Winer, Riickert, de Wette, 
Ewald, Wieseler. 

13 Flacius, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Morus, 
Hofmann. 

14 Rom. viii. 4, xiv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 3, e¢ al. 

16 Thiersch. 


CHAP. 1. : 1 81 


that which was constant, accordant with principle, in Peter’s case.! This is 
laid down by Paul, with the argumentative «i, as certain and settled, and 
that not merely by inference from his recent experience of Peter having eat- 
en in company with Gentiles, but also on the ground of his knowledge 
otherwise of this apostle and of his practical principles on this point, with 
which the é@vxae¢ (jv just before actually carried out by Peter was in accord- 
ance. Groundlessly and erroneously Riickert labors? to extract an en- 
tirely different meaning, understanding “Iovdaixae ye in an ideal sense (Rom. 
li. 28 f.; John i. 48), and é@vxd¢ Ce as its Opposite : ‘‘ By thy present con- 
duct thou showest thyself truly not as a genuine Jew, but as a Gentile 
(sinner) ; how art thou at liberty to ask that the Gentiles should adopt 
Jewish customs, which by thy behavior thou thyself dost not honor ?” 
But, in fact, the reader could only take the explanation of the é@wkéd¢ Cae 
from pera tov évdv ovvgctiev (ver. 12), and of the Iovaixéc Cyc from iré- 
oredde . . . mepitoume (ver. 12). No one could light upon the alleged ideal 
view (reverting, in the apodosis, to the empirical !), the more especially as 
the breaking off from eating with the Gentiles would have to be regarded as 
a Gentile habit (in an ethical sense) ! The {7 is not the moral living accord- 
ing to the Gentile or the Jewish fashion, but the shaping of the life with 
reference to the category of external social observances within the Christian com- 
munion, such as, in the individual case in question, the following (Iovdaixéc) 
or non-following (é#v:xéc) of the Jewish restrictions as to eating. — rac] 
qui fit, ut, “how does it happen that” (Rom. iii. 6, vi. 2, x. 14, and fre- 
quently), indicating the incomprehensibleness of this morally contradictory 
behavior. — 74 267 avayxaerc “Tovdaifev| indirect compulsion. For the Gen- 
tile Christians in Antioch must very naturally have felt themselves con- 
strained by the imposing example of the highly-esteemed Peter to look upon 
the Jewish habit of living—the observance of the special peculiarities of 
the outward legal Judaism *—as something belonging to Christianity, and 
necessary for partaking in Christian fellowship and for attaining the Mes- 
sianic salvation ; and they would shape their conduct in practice in accord- 
ance with this view.’ De Wette® assumes, that the emissaries of James 
preached the principle of the necessity of observing the law, and that Peter 
gave his support, at least tacitly, to this preaching. This is not at all inti- 
mated in the text, and is not rendered necessary by the literal sense of 
avaykagerv, which is sufficiently explained by the moral constraint of the in- 
ducement of so influential an example, as it is often used in classical au- 
thors, ‘‘de varia necessitate quam praesens rerum conditio efficit,” ‘‘of 
the various necessity which the present condition of affairs effects.”° The 





1 Contrary to the view of Hilgenfeld and Ignat. ad Magnes. 10, acomov éotty Xprotov 


others. *Inooby Aadery Kai “lovdaigery, ‘It is absurd 
2 Since it does not run: ézerdy . . . e¢naas. to profess Christ Jesus and yet to Juda- 
3 The “Iovéaigeey: comp. Esth. viii. 17; ize.” 

Plut. Cic.7. Where a freedmanis spoken of, 4 Comp. Usteri, p. 66 f, 

Who was évoxos 7 lovdwigerv, ‘‘ chargeable 5 Comp. also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 198 f., 

with Judaizing,” and in reference to whom Komment. p. 168. 

Cicero says: ti’ Iovdatw mpos xotpov, “ What 6 Sturz, Lew. Xen. I. 18. 6. 


has a Jew to do with swine ;’’ comp. also 


6 


82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


view which understands the word here not at all of indirect constraint, but 
of definite demands,’ by which Peter sought to turn them back into the 
path of Jewish Christianity, is opposed to the divine instruction imparted 
to this apostle, to his utterances at the council, and to our context, accord- 
ing to which the avayxafeww can have consisted in nothing more than the oi« 
épHorodetv as it is represented in ver. 12 f., and consequently must have been 
merely a practical, indirect compulsion, not conveyed in any express de- 
mands. Wieseler obscures the intelligibility of the whole passage by un- 
derstanding the Iovdaifecv of the observance of the restrictions as to food en- 
acted by the apostolic council. In decisive opposition to this view it may be 
urged, that in the whole context this council is left entirely unmentioned ; 
further, that these restrictions as to food had nothing to do with the Jew- 
ish proselytes (on whose account, possibly, their observance might have 
been called an Iovdaiterv) ; lastly, that the compliance with the same on the 
part of the church at Antioch, especially so soon after the council (see on 
ver. 11), cannot, according to Acts xv. 30, at all be a matter of doubt. 
Moreover, Paul, who had himself together with Peter so essentially co-op- 
erated towards this decree of the council, have—in the presence of Peter, 
of the Christians of Antioch, and even of those who were sent by James— 
characterized the obedience given to the restrictions in question by the in- 
applicable and ill-sounding name ’Iovdaifew ? It would have shown at least 
great want of tact. 

Ver. 15. A continuation of the address to Peter down to ver, 21.* Others 
have looked upon vv. 15-21 as addressed to the Galatians ;° but to this view 
it may be objected, that Paul himself does not indicate the return to his 
readers until iii. 1, and that the bare, brief reproach in ver. 14 would 
neither correspond to the historical character of so important an event, 
nor stand in due relation with the purpose for which Paul narrates it (see 
on ver. 11) ; as indeed he himself has in vv. 11 and 14 so earnestly pre- 
pared the way for, and announced, his opposition, that the reader could 
not but expect something more than that mere question—so hurriedly thrown 
‘out—of indignant surprise.* And how could he have written to his (for the 


1 Ritschl, p. 146. 

2So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, 
Estius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Tittmann, 
(Opuse. p. 865), Knapp (Ser. var. arg. IL. 
p. 452 f.), Flatt, Winer, Riickert, Schott, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette and Moller, 
Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Holsten. 

3 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius, 


Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, 
Matthies, Hermann, Hofmann, Wieseler, 
Reithmayr. 


4Indeed the practical renwnciation (not 
mere denial) of the principle of Christian 
freedom required a renewed apology for, 
and vindication of, the latter ; especially as 
Paul had called Peter to account before the 
assembled church, whereby the act assumed 
a solemnity to which the brief question in 


ver. 14 alone could in no way seem ade- 
quate, and least of all could it suffice to 
procure a duly proportionate satisfaction 
for the offence given to the church (ver. 11). 
He does not, however, ‘‘demonstrate’’ his 
explanation to Peter (Wieseler’s difficulty), 
but presents it in the most vivid and strik- 
ing dialectic, compressing everything which 
would have afforded matter for a very co- 
pious demonstration sharply and sternly, 
towards the defeat of the great opponent 
who had been unfaithful to himself. Hof- 
mann inconsiderately holds that, if Paul 
after the concession é@vikas ¢7js K. ovK “Iov- 
Saikws had thus explained himself in a-de- 
tailed statement to Peter, he would have 
acted absurdly. It would have been absurd, 
if Paul, in order to say the two or-three 


CHAP. II., 15. 83 


most part) Gentile-Christian readers ijueic¢ gbcec ’Tovdaior k.7.2., without telling 
them whom he meant thereby ? Just as little can we assume that Paul again 
turns to the Galatians with kai jueic in ver. 16,’ or in ver. 17,” or in ver. 18 ;3 
or that he* has been imperceptibly led away from the thread of his historical 
statement, so that it is not possible to show how much belongs to the speech 
at Antioch. No, the whole of this discourse (vv. 15-21)—thoroughly un- 
folding the truth from principles, and yet so vivid, and in fact annihilating 
his opponent—harmonizes so fully with the importance of a public step 
against Peter, as well as with the object which Paul had in view in relat- 
ing this occurrence to the Galatians especially, among whom indeed these 
very principles, against which Peter offended, were in great danger, that, up 
to its tragic conclusion dpa Xprorb¢ dwpedv axévavev (ver. 21), it must be re- 
garded as a unity—as the effusion directed against Peter at Antioch ; but, 
at the same time, it cannot be maintained that Paul spoke the words quite 
literally thus, as he here, after so long a lapse of time, quotes from lively 
recollection of the scene which he could not forget. — jjueic gicer Tovdaior, cai 
ovk && é9vav auapr.] Paul begins his dogmatic explanation in regard to the 
reproach expressed in ver. 14 with a concession : ‘‘ We are Jews by birth (in 
this Paul feels the whole advantage of belonging to the ancient holy people 
of God, Rom. iii. 1 f., ix. 1 ff.), and not sinners of the Gentiles” (by Gentile 
descent). Gentiles as such, because they are dvowoe and dve_eo. (Rom. ii. 12 ; 
1 Cor. ix. 21; Eph. ii. 12), are to the Israelite consciousness duaptw2oi and 
adixoc (1 Sam. xv. 18; Tob. xiii. 6; Wisd. x. 20: comp. Luke xviii. 32, 
xxiv. 7; 1 Cor. vi. 1); and from ¢his—the theocratical—point of view Paul 
says é é3vév duaptwdoi, born Gentiles, and as such sinners, as all Gentiles are. 
Not as if he would look upon the ’Iovdaiove as not sinners ; according to the 
sequel, indeed, they needed justification equally with the Gentiles (see Rom. 
il. 3, 22 f., v.12; Eph. ii. 2f.). But the passage affirms that the Jews—as 
the possessors of the revelation and the law, of the ancient theocratic viod- 
ecia ‘‘ adoption,” and the promises (Rom. ix. 4), and as belonging to the holy 
azapyxh, ‘first fruits,” and root-stock of the theocracy (Rom. xi. 16)—possessed 
as their own a religious consecration of life, whereby they stood on a cer- 
tain stage of righteousness in virtue of which, although it was not that of 
the true dixacoctvy, they were nevertheless exalted far above the Gentiles in 
their natural state of sinfulness (Eph. ii. 12 ; Tit. iii. 5). Luther well says: 
‘**Nos natura Judaei in /egali justitia excedimus quidem gentes, qui pecca- 
tores sunt, sinobis conferantur, ut qui nec legum nec opera ejus habent ; verum 
non in hoc justi sumus coram Deo, evterna est illa justitia nostra,” ‘‘ We who 
are by nature Jews in legal righteousness exceed the Gentiles, who are sin- 
ners, if they be compared with us, as they have neither the law nor its 
works ; but in this we are not righteous before God ; such righteousness of 
ours is external.” If duaprwAot had not been unduly understood according to 
the purely ethical idea (the opposite of sinlessness), the discourse wouid not 





words to Peter recorded in ver. 14, had 2 Luther, Calvin. 
brought the whole act of the cara mpoowrov 3 Cajetanus, Neander. 
avte avréatyy before the assembled church. 4 Erasmus and Estius by way of sugges- 


1 Calovius, Paulus. tion, Usteri. 


84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


have been so broken up as by Elsner, Er. Schmidt, and others : ‘‘ Nos na- 
tura Judaci, licet non ex gentibus, peccatores,” ‘‘ We, by nature Jews, although 
not of the Gentiles, are sinners;” comp. Paulus. Hofmann’s view is also simi- 
lar : ‘‘that the apostle excluded from himself that sinfulness only, which 
was implied in Gentile descent—characteristic of those not belonging natu- 
rally to the Jewish nationality.” ’ Paul wishes, not to affirm the different 
nature of the sinfulness of those born as Jews and Gentiles respectively, but 
to recall the theocratic advantage of the Jews over the sinners of Gentile 
descent ; in spite of which advantage, however, etc. (ver. 16). The con- 
trast lies in the idea of a theocratic sanctitas, ‘‘ holiness,” peculiar to the born 
Jew, onthe one hand ;? and on the other, of a profane vitiositas, ‘‘ viciousness, ” 
wherewith the Gentile descent is burdened. [See Note XXXYIIL., p. 97. ]— 
has the emphasis: We on our part (I and thou). yév is not to be supplied jjueic] 
here (Riickert, Schott); but the concession in ver. 15 stands by itself, and the 
contrast is added without preparation in ver. 16.° The contrast thus strikes 
one more vividly, and hence the absence of the uév can afford no ground for 
calling in question (with Hofmann) the sense of a concession.* On the dif- 
ference between ’Iovdaio: (theocratic bond of union) and ‘ESpaio. (national- 
ity), see Wieseler.° 

Ver. 16 is usually construed so that eidére¢ . . . Xprorod is a parenthesis ; 
and either the sentence is made to begin with jueic in ver. 15, and this jueic 
is again taken up by the subsequent kai jucic,® or swmus is supplied after 
duaprwdot, a new sentence is commenced by eidérec, and kai jueic x.7.A. 1s taken 
as apodosis.7. Both forms of construction would give eidére¢ . . . 
as the motive for the éxiorevoapmer. 


Xptorov 
But in this way the statement, how Paul 
and Peter (for these are the subject ; see on ver. 15) attained to faith, would 
not tally with history, for the conversion of these two apostles did not at 
all take place by means of logical process in the argumentative way of «dé- 
rec. . . éxcoretoauev. Both of them were in fact miraeulously and suddenly 
laid hold of by Christ ; and thereby, on their becoming believers, the light 
of the statement of purpose in the sequel dawned upon them. We must 
therefore consider gs correct the punctuation of Lachmann, * who is followed 
by Wieseler : a comma only before eidérec, and a period after Xpioroi, ‘* We 
are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing however” (eidérec still 
belonging to the écvév, which has to be supplied), that is, since we never- 
theless know, that a man is not justified, ete.; so that what thou, Peter, 


1 Comp. his Schriftbew. I.-p. 564, 610, ‘‘ Our 
sinfulness does not bear the characteristic 
Gentile shape.” 

2 Calvin appropriately says : “* Quia autem 
promissis haereditariam benedictionem fa- 
ciebat, ideo naturale voeatur hoe bonum,”’ 
‘* But since the promise made the blessing 
hereditary, this advantage is on this ac- 
count called natural.” 

3 Comp. Fritzsche, a@ Rom. II. p. 423; 

3remi, ad Isocr. Paneg. 105, ‘‘ quando altera 
pars per é¢ sit evehenda,” ‘‘since the other 
part is to be inferred by means of the ée.”” 


4 Comp. also Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 
15: 
5 Ueber d. Hebrderbrief, 1861, II. p. 28. 
® So Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, 
Reithmayr. 

7 Beza and others; also Riickert, Usteri, 
Schott, Fritzsche, d. conform. N. T. Lachm. 
p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, Mat- 
thias, Moller. 

8 In the small edition ; in the larger one 
the usual punctuation is followed. 


‘ 


CHAP. I, 11/6: 85 


doest (ver. 15), completely conflicts with this certainty, which we have not- 
withstanding of our Jewish pre-eminence. [See Note XXXIX., p. 97.]—oi 
dixavodrat dv poroc] The emphatically prefixed dccaioira: is negatived : a man 
is not justified. As to the idea of dicacovota, see on Rom. i. 17. Here also 
it appears clearly as an actus forensis, and as incompatible with the perversion 
of the idea by the Catholics and the followers of Osiander.1_ From works of the 
law, which would be the determining ground of God’s acquittal ; by means of 
faith, which is imputed by God as righteousness (Rom. v. 5, 24 f.),—these 
are the contrasted points, while the idea of dixavovadac is the same.* — i= Epyov 
vouov| vduov is not subjective (works, which the law by its precepts call forth), 
but objective: works, which relate to the law, that is, works by which the pre- 
cepts of the law are fulfilled, which have as their opposite the duaprjuara vouov, 
Wisd. ii. 12.° Our passage testifies also in favor of this view by the contrast 
of rictewe "Iycov Xpicrov, inasmuch as the one relation (épywy) to the one ob- 
ject (véuov) stands correlatively contrasted with the other relation (x/écrewe) 
to the other object (Ijcot Xpicrov). Schott, following the older expositors,* 
quite erroneously limits véuo¢g to the ceremonial law,—a limitation which 
never occurs in the N. T.° and, especially where justification is the matter 
in question, would be quite unsuitable ; for the impossibility of justification 
by the law has reference to the whole law, viewed in its requirements jointly 
and severally, which in its full extent, and in the way willed by God, no man 
can fulfil. ° — édv x4] not a compromise between justification by works and jus- 
tification by faith in the Jewish-Christian consciousness,’ but a transition to 
another mode of conception : A man is not justified by the works of the 
law ; he is not justified, except by, etc.* Consequently we have here neither 
justification by the works, which are done by means of faith (the Catholic 
view), nor Ohrist’s fulfilment of the law, which is apprehended by faith.” 
The former is not Pauline,” and the latter has only its indirect truth (for the 
N. T. nowhere teaches the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law), in 
so far as the atoning work of the Lord completed on the cross, which is the 
specific object and main matter of justifying faith, necessarily presupposes 
His active, sinless obedience (2 Cor. v. 21), of which, however, nothing is 
here said. [See Note XL., p. 97.] But here in av uf we have the ‘‘ sola fide” 
of Luther and his Church."! It is only the man justified solely by faith, who 
thereupon fulfils by means of the Spirit the requirements of the law.’” This 


1 See especially Wieseler in loc. 

2 Comp. on Rom. iii. 25 f. 

3 See on Rom. ii. 15. 

« Including Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus. 

5 Although, according to the context, at 
one time the ethical, and at another the 
ritual, aspect of the law preponderates. 
Comp. on Rom. iii. 20, and Schmid, didi. 
Theol. Tl. p. 336. 

® Comp. iii. 10; Weiss, bib/. Theol. p. 259. 

7 Holsten, in spite of the apodosis. 

® Comp. Hymn. Cer. V7 f., ov8€é tus GAAos 
aittos aOavdtwv, ci py veheAnyepéta Zev's, 
“nor is there any other cause of immortals 
except (e¢ »7) the cloud-gatherer Zeus.” 


®So also Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 18 f. 

10 See the constantly repeated attacks on 
the part of the Catholics against the evan- 
gelical doctrine of justification by faith, in 
Mohler, Symbol. p. 182, ed. 4; Reithmayr, 
p. 179 ff. More unprejudiced is Dollinger, 
Christenth. u. Kirche, pp. 187, 202, and else- 
where. On the other hand, Romang (in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 1, 2) has made too much 
concession to the Catholic justification by 
works, and has, like Hengstenberg, erro- 
neously assumed a gradual progress of 
justification. 

11 Comp. on Rom. iii. 28. 

12 See on Rom. viii. 4. 


86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


is the moral completion of the relation of the law to redemption. — Inaov 
Xporov] object : on Jesus Christ. Comp. Mark xi. 22.'—é& and 64 denote 
the same idea (of causality) under two forms (that of origin and that of me- 
diate agency), as Paul in general is fond of varying his prepositions.? In 
dua * faith is conceived as the subjective condition of justification—the pres- 
ence of which is the necessary causa medians of the latter. Certainly the 
man, as soon as he believes, enters immediately into the state of justi +a- 
tion ; but the preposition has (notwithstanding what Hofmann says) nothing 
to do with this relation, any more than é& postpones the being righteous, as 
the result of action, until the very end of life, whereas it may be conceived 
at any moment of life, asa result for the time being. — «ai jueic] begins a 
new sentence (see above). That which Paul had just laid before Peter as a 
point on which both were convinced,—érz ov dixacovtar dvi pwrog && épywv 
vouov, éav wy dia wior. "I. X.,—he now confirms by reminding him of the 
righteousness which they also had aimed at in having become believers 
(éxcotetoapuev); So that kat ijueic, even we both, supplies the special applica- 
tior of the foregoing general dvSpwroc. The order Xpratdv ’Iycovr lays 
a greater stress on the Messianic character of the historical person who is the 
obj ct of faith, than is the case in the usual order.*— érv é& épywv véuov ob 
Sixaolioerar aoa cdpé]® These words, é& épywv véuov, take up again what 
had just been said with solemn emphasis, by means of the confirmatory 67, 
since indeed. Tlaca odpé conveys the idea of ‘‘ all men” (comp. above, évdpu- 
roc), with the accompanying idea of moral weakness and sinfulness, on which 
is based both the need of justification, and also its impossibility by means of 
works in the sight of the justifying God.* Looking at the difference in the 
terms used and the absence of the usual formula of quotation, it is not to be 
assumed that Paul intended here to give a Scripture-proof (from Ps. exliii. 
2), as Wieseler and others think. An involuntary echo of the language 
may have occurred, while the idea was more precisely defined. The negation 
is here also not to be separated from the verb ; for it is not taca odpf which 
is negatived, but dicawSfoera in reference to raca caps. Fritzsche" aptly 
says : ‘‘non probabitur per praestitum legi obsequium quicquid est carnis,” 
‘¢ whatever is of the flesh will not be approved by means of the obedience 
rendered the law.” Lastly, the futwre denotes that which never will occur. 
The reference to the judgment (Rom. v. 19), which is discovered here by 
Hofmann and the earlier expositors, is quite out of place.® 

Ver. 17. The 6é dialectically carries on the refutation of Peter ; but the 
protasis beginning with ei cannot have its apodosis in ebpédjyev k. a. dy. 3° On 


1 See on Rom. iii. 22, and Lipsius, Recht- ® Hofmann, who explains it, as if Paul 
Jertigungsl. p. 112. had written et 5é é¢n7ovmer (if we, When we 
2 See on Rom. iii. 80; 2 Cor. ili. 11; Eph. i. 7. became believers, sought, etc.) dueamOjvar 
3 Comp. iii. 26. év XpioTe, evpéOnuev x.7.A. (Wwe thereby ex- 
4 Comp. ver. 4, ili. 26. hibit ourselves at the same time as sinners). 
5 Comp. Rom. Iii. 20. According to Hofmann, the evpé6ymev is in- 
® Comp. on Acts ii. 17. tended to apply to both members of the 
7 Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 26. sentence,—a forced, artificial view for 
® Comp. ver. 21. It is otherwise, v. 5; which the context affords neither right nor 


2 Tim. ly. 8 reason. 


CHAPS Tiny Ais 87 


the contrary, it runs on as far as dywaptwioi, which is then followed by the 
interrogatory apodosis. Consequently : But if we (in order to show thee, 
from what has been just said, how opposed to Christ thy conduct was), 
although we sought to be justified in Christ, were found even on our part sinners. 
This protasis supposes that which must have been the case, if Peter’s Juda- 
izing conduct had been in the right ; namely, that the result would then 
have been that faith does not lead to, or does not suffice for, justification, 
Lut that it isrequisite to combine with it the observance of the Jewish law. 
Tf faith does not render the ’Iovdaifecv superfluous, as was naturally to be 
concluded from the course of conduct pursued by Peter, then this seeking 
after justification in Christ has shown itself so ineffectual, that the believer 
just stands on an equality with the Gentiles, because he has ceased to be a 
Jew and yet has not attained to righteousness in Christ : he is therefore 
now nothing else than an ayaptwidc, just as the Gentile is.. But if this be 
the case, the apodosis now asks, Is Christ, therefore, min‘ster of sin (and not 
of righteousness) ?—seeing that our faith in Him, which seeks for right- 
eousness by Him, has the sad result that we have been found like the Gen- 
tiles in a state of sin. The answer to this question is, Far be it! Tt isa 
result to be abhorred, that Christ, instead of bringing about the righteous- 
ness sought in Him, should be the promoter of sin. Conseqnently tl?’ state 
of things supposed in the protasis is an anti-Christian al/surdity. — The 
subject of Cyrovvrec and eipédyuev is, as before, Peter and Paul. — Cyrovvrec] 
emphatically prefixed, in reference to the preceding sentence of purpose, iva 
StkatwSGuev x.7.A. 3 So that this Cyreiv dixaew. is not in reality different 
from the zvoretew ei¢ Xpiot., but denotes the same thing as respects its ten- 
dency. To the ¢yrovvtec then corresponds the etpéSyuev, which introduces 
an entirely different result: if we have been found, if it has turned out as a 
matter of fact, that, etc.1 As to elpédnuev we must, however, notice that— 
as in the apodosis dpa Xpiorde x.7.2. We cannot without proceeding arbitra- 
rily supply anything but the simple éory, and not av qv (iii. 21)—the aorist 
requires the explanation : inventi sumus, ‘‘ have been found,” ? and therefore 
neither reperimur, ‘‘ are found,”® nor inventi essemus, ‘‘ would be found,’ nor 
should be found, ° nor were to be found.® Observe, moreover, that in eipé3., in con- 
trast to Cyroivre¢ x.7.A., the accessory idea of something unexpected suggests 


DRom- vil. 10/5) 1 Cor: iv.'2, xv. 153 2 Cor. 
Za IPE 

2 Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, and many others. 
So correctly also Lipsius in Hilgenfeld’s 
Zeitschr. 1861, p. 73 ff. He, however, im- 
proving on Holsten’s similar interpretation, 
thus explains the whole passage: ‘If we, 
being born Jews, have, by our seeking 
after the salvation in Christ, confessed our 
sinfulness (and consequently, at the same 
time, the impotence of the law to make us 
righteous), does it thence follow that Christ, 
by inviting also us Jews to seek righteous- 
ness in Him and not in the law, has led us 
astray to a life in Gentile impurity?” But 


this inference does not stand in logical con- 
sistency with the protasis, and could not 
even suggest itself asa false conclusion ; 
for auaptias is assumed to be taken ina 
different sense from auaptwAoi,—the latter 
in the sense of defectus justitiae, the former 
as vitiositas ethnica. Holsten also under- 
stands auaptias as the unfettering of sin in 
the moral life (comp. v. 13; Rom. i. 6 f., e¢ 
al.),—an idea which is here foreign to the 
context. 

3 Erasmus, Castalio. 

4 de Wette and many others. 

5 Luther. 

6 Schott. 


88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


itself.!— év Xpior@] nothing else than what was previously put as é« riorewe 
Xpiorov, but expressed according to the notion that in Christ, whose person 
and work form the object of faith, justification has its causal basis.* Its op- 
posite : év véum, iii. 11, and the id/a diucacocbvy, Rom. x. 3. — kad abroi] et ipsi, 
also on our part, includes Peter and Paul in the class of duaprwioi previously 
referred to in ver. 15. — dpa X. ayapr. diax.] is, at any rate, a question (Vul- 
gate, numguid), for with Paul 7 yévorro is always preceded by a question.® 
With this, however, either mode of writing, apa (Lachmann) or dpa (Tisch- 
endorf), may stand. Both express igitur, rebus sic se habentibus, ‘‘therefore, 
as matters stand,” but dpa (Luke xvill. 8; Acts viii. 30), although Paul 
does not elsewhere use it (but just as little does he use an interrogative apa’), 
is the livelier and stronger.° To take apa for dp’ oi, nonne (Olshausen, 
Schott), is a purely arbitrary suggestion, which fails to apprehend the sub- 
tlety of the passage, the question in which (not dpa in itself, as held by 
Hartung) bears the trace of an ironical suspicion of doubtfulness.® Besides, 
apa is never really used for dp’ od, although it sometimes seems so.” Riickert 
has mistaken the sense of the whole passage: ‘‘If we, although we seek 
grace with God through Christ, nevertheless continue to sin, etc., do ye 
think that Christ will then take pleasure in us, greater pleasure than in the 
Gentiles, and thus strengthen and further us in our sin?” Against this it 
may be urged, that Paul has not written elpicxéueda ; that the comparison 
with the Gentiles implied in «at aitoi would be unsuitable, for the sin here 
reproved would be hypocritical Judaizing ; and that ver. 18 would not, as is 
most arbitrarily assumed, give the reason for the yu yévoiro, but, passing over 
the yw yévoiro and the apodosis, would carry us back to the protasis and 
prove this latter. The nearest to this erroneous interpretation is that of 
Beza and Wieseler, who (so also essentially Reithmayr) find expressed here 
the necessity of the union of sanctification with justification.* But the right 
sense of the passage, as given above, is found in substance, although with 
several modifications, and in some cases with an incorrect apprehension of 
the aorist ebpéIyuev (see above), in Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 


Peter. 


1 Comp. on Matt. i. 20. 

22 Cor. v. 21; Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 24. 

3 Rom. iii. 4, vi. 2; Gal. iii. 21, e¢ al. 

4 Which is assumed by Wieseler, Butt- 
mann, Hofmann. 

5 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 180; Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 39 f. 

® Comp. Buttmann, ad Plat. Charmid. 14, 
ed. Heind. 

7 Herm. ad Viger. p. 823; Heind. ad Plat. 
Theaet. p. 476; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 216. 
See Kiihner, ad@ Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 1. 

8 They take the essential sense to be: ‘‘If 
the man whois justified in Christ has sinned, 
Christ is not to blame for this; for (ver. 18) 
the man himself is to blame for the trans- 
gression, because he builds again the do- 
minion of sin which He had destroyed.”’ So 
Wieseler. This interpretation is utterly 
unsuitable, if ver. 15 ff. is still addressed to 


It may be urged also against it, 
that Paul, by using evpé@yuev (instead of 
evpioxoneba), Would have written in a way 
both obscure and misleading ; further, that 
the relapse of the justified man into sin 
did not at all suggest or presume as prob- 
able the conclusion that Christ was to 
blame for it ; moreover, that the expression 
apaptias Suakovos must assert something of 
a far stronger and more positive character 
(namely, sin-producer) ; lastly, that ver. 18, 
taken in Wieseler’s sense, would, notwith- 
standing its carefully-chosen expressions, 
contain nothing more than an almost 
meaningless and self-evident thought, in 
which, moreover, the destruction of the 
dominion of sin, which has been accom- 
plished by Christ or by the justifying grace 
of God (Rom. viii. 8), would be attributed 
to man (katédvoa), 


CHAP..11,, 18% 89 


Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Wolf, 
Wetstein, and others ; also Semler, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, 
Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
Matthias ; several of whom, however, such as the Greek Fathers, Luther, 
Calovius, Koppe, Usteri, Lachmann, taking the accentuation dpa, do not 
assume any question, which does not alter the essential sense, but does not 
correspond with the su yévorro which follows ; while Hilgenfeld unnecessa- 
rily supposes a breviloguence: ‘‘ then I ask, Is then Christ,” etc. ? — Xpiordc] 
“‘in whom, yet, we seek to be justified,” Bengel. — dyuapr. didx.] ayapr. 
emphatically prefixed, in contrast to the ducawSjva : one, through whom sin 
receives service rendered, sin is upheld and promoted.! The opposite, dca- 
Kovot dukacoobvyc, 2 Cor. xi. 15. 

Ver. 18. Ground assigned for the yy yévorto : No ! Christ is not a minister 
of sin ; for—and such is the result, Peter, of the course of conduct cen- 
sured in thee —if [again build up that which Ihave pulled down, I show myself 
as transgressor ; so that Christ thus by no means appears, according to the 
state of the case supposed in ver. 17, as the promoter of sin, but the reproach 
—and that a reproach of transgression — falls upon myself alone, as I exhibit 
myself by my own action. Remark the emphasis, energetically exposing 
the great personal guilt, which is laid jirst on rapadryv (in contrast to 
duaptiac didKovoc),then on éuavrév (in contrast to Xpordc), and jointly on the 
juztaposition of the two words. In the building up of that which had been pulled 
down Paul depicts the behavior of Peter, in so far as the latter previously, 
and even still in Antioch (ver. 12), had pronounced the Mosaic law not to 
be obligatory in respect of justification on the Christian who has his right- 
eousness in Christ and not in the law, and had thus pulled it down as a 
building thenceforth useless, but subsequently by his Judaizing behavior 
again represented the law as obligatory for righteousness, and thus, as it 
were, built up anew the house which had been pulled down.” Paul is fond 
of the figure of building and pulling down.? The jirst person veils that, 
which had happened with Peter in concreto, ‘‘in the concrete,” under the 
milder form of a general proposition, the subject of which (= one, any one) 
is individualized by J.4—ravra] with emphasis : this, not anything else or more 
complete in its place. —rapafdrnv] not sinner generally, as Wieseler, according 
to his interpretation of the whole passage, is forced to explain it (see on ver. 
17), but transgressor of the law (Rom. iv. 15, ii. 25) ; so that, in conformity 
with the significance of the figure used, véuov is obviously supplied from the 
context (vv. 16, 19),—and that as the Mosaic law, not as the vouoc tio ricTewe, 


1Luther’s gloss: ‘‘ Whoever desires to 
become godly by means of works, acts just 
as if Christ by His ministry, office, preach- 
ing, and sufferings, made us first of all sin- 
ners who must become godly through the 
law ; thus is Christ denied, crucified again, 
slandered, and sin is built up again, 
which had previously been done away by 
the preaching of faith.” 

2 Comp. Holsten, 2. Huang. d. Paul. u. Petr. 


p. 283. 

3See Rom. xy. 20; 1 Cor. viii. 1, x. 23; 
Eph. ii. 20 f. ; Rom. xiv. 20; 2 Cor. v. 1, e¢ al. 
Comp. Talmud, Berach. 63. 1, in Wetstein: 
“‘jam aedificasti, an destruis? jam sepem 
fecisti, an perrumpes?”’ ‘‘ Art thou de- 
stroying who hast been building? wilt thou 
break through who hast made the hedge ?” 

4 Comp. Rom, Vii. 7. 


90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


the gospel.’ But how far does he, who reasserts the validity of that law 
which he had previously as respects justification declared invalid, present 
himself as a transgressor of the same? Notin so far as he proves that he had 
wrongly declared it invalid and abandoned it,? or as he has in the pulling down 
sinned against that which is to him right, as Hofmann interprets it,? but, as 
ver. 19 shows, because the law itself has brought about the freedom of the 
Christian from the law, in order that he may live to God ; consequently he 
that builds it up again acts in opposition to the law, and thus stands forth 
as transgressor, namely, of the law in its real sense, which cannot desire, but 
on the contrary rejects, the re-exchanging of the new righteousness for the 
old.4 The word is purposely chosen, and stands in a climactic relation to 
duaprodoi (ver. 17),—the category which includes also the Gentiles without 
law. —ovvotavw| J show. See Wetstein and Fritzsche, ad Rom. iii. 5; 
Munthe, Obdss. p. 358 ; Loesner, p. 248. But Schott explains it as eommendo, 
laudo, ‘‘T commend, I praise,” making it convey an ironical reference to the 
Judaists, who had boasted of their Judaizing behavior. This idea is not in 
any way indicated ;° and the ironical reference must have rather pointed at 
Peter, who, however, had not made a boast of his Judaizing, but had con- 
sented to it in a timid and conniving fashion. Hence Bengel’s explanation 
is more subtle; ‘‘ Petrus voluit commendare se ver. 12 fin.; ejus commen- 
dationis tristem Paulus fructum hic mimesi ostendit,” ‘‘Peter wished to 
commend himself, ver. 12, at the end ; Paul here by a mimesis shows the 
sad fruit of this commendation.” But according to the connection, as exbib- 
ited above, between ver. 18 and ver. 17, the idea of commendation is so en- 
tirely foreign to the passage, that, in fact, éuavrdv cvvordvw expresses essen- 
tially nothing more than the idea of eipédnuev in ver. 17; bringing into 
prominence, however, the se/f-presentation, the self-proof, which the person 
concerned practically furnishes in his own case : he establishes himself as a 
transgressor. 

Ver. 19 f., containing the ‘‘ summa ac medulla Christianismi,” ‘‘sum and 
marrow of Christianity” (Bengel), furnishes the confirmation of ver. 18 ; for 


1 Koppe, Matthies. 

2 Ambrosius, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Vor- 
stius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Rosenmiil- 
ler, Borger, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, 
Ewald. 

%The application to be made of the 
general proposition is said to be this: 
“Whosoever desires and seeks to be- 
come righteous in Christ would not do 
so, unless he recognized the matter in 
which he sinned as a breach of the law 
which he has again to make good, and that 
which he does to make it good is self- 
confession as a transgressor.’”” This forced 
perversion should have been precluded by 
the very consideration that «atadvew in 
reference to the law cannot be understood 
in the sense of breaking it, like Avew 7d 
oaBBarov, John y. 18 (comp. vii. 26), but 
only in the sense of Matt. y. 17, according 


to which, of course, the building up again 
isno making good again. Comp. On katadAverv 
Tovs vouous, Polyb. iii. 8. 2. 

4 Comp. Rom. iii. 31. See the fuller state- 
ment at ver. 19. Comp. Chrysostom and 
Theophylact (avros yap .. . 0 vomos... mE 
adynynoce mpos THY mioTLW Kal EmELoey adetvar 
avrov, “for the law itself led me to faith 
and persuaded me to break it’). Bengel, 
moreover, well says: ‘“‘ Vocabulum horri- 
bile, legis studiosioribus,”’ “a horrible term 
to those more eager for the law.” 

5/2 Cor} dil) 1) ve es, Seles 

6 Schott should not have appealed to the 
form ovvictavw, Both forms have the same 
signification. Hesychius: cvvecravew, émac- 
veiv, pavepovv, BeBarovv, mapatiOevac. Only 
the form cvrvicravw is less frequent and later, 
Polyb. iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 17. 6, xxxii. 15. 8; 2 
Corsiiilave des 


GrAr 1., 19) 91 


which purpose Paul makes use of his own experience’ with sublime self-as- 
surance and in a way sufficient to shame Peter : For I for my own part, to 
give utterance here to the consciousness of my own experience, apart from 
the experience of others, am through the law dead to the law, in order to live to 
God. In this view the contrast to Xporé¢ is not expressed already by this 
éy6 (Hofmann); but only by the éyé of ver. 20. The point confirmatory of 
ver. 18 lies in dca véuov ; for he, who through the law has passed out of the 
relation to the law which regulated his life, in order to stand in a higher re- 
lation, and yet reverts to his legally-framed life, acts against the law, xapa- 
Barnv éavrdv cvviotdver. The vduocg in both cases must be the Mosaic law, 
because otherwise the probative force and the whole point of the passage 
would be lost ; and because, if Paul had intended véyov to refer to the gos- 
pel,* he must have added some distinguishing definition.* The immediate 
context, that is, the Xpioré cvvectaipwoua x.t.A. which closely follows (and 
not ver. 16), supplies precise information how Paul intended the dia véuov 
vouw arédavov to be understood. By the crucifixion the curse of the law was 
fulfilled in Christ (iii. 18); and so far Christ died through the law, which 
demanded, and in Christ’s death received, the accomplishment of its curse. 
In one, therefore, who is crucified with Christ, the curse of the law is like- 
wise fulfilled, so that in virtue of his ethical fellowship in the death of 
Jesus he knows himself to be dead dia véuov,* and consequently at the same 
time dead to the law (comp. Rom. vii. 4); because, now that the law has 
accomplished in his case its rights, the bond of union which joined him to 
the law is broken ; for catypy#Snuev ard Tov vowov, axotavéevtec év  KaTeLxoueda, 
‘‘we have been delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we 
were held,” Rom. vii. 6. So, in all essential points, Chrysostom® and 
others, Zachariae, Usteri (Schott wavers in his view, Riickert still more so).° 
This is the only interpretation which keeps closely to the context, and is 
therefore to be preferred to the views of others, who understand 6:a véuov to 
refer to the Messianic contents of the law and the prophets, by which Paul 
had been induced to abandon the law,’ and of others still, who find the z- 
sufficiency of the law for salvation expressed.* Neither is there suggested in» 


1 Not—as Olshausen and Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius hold, contrary to the context—desig- 
nating himself as representative of believers 
generally. 

2 Jerome, Ambrose, Erasmus, Luther, 
Vatablus, Zeger, Vorstius, Bengel, Michael- 
is, Koppe, Morus, Rosenmiller, Borger, 
Vater. 

3 Rom. iii. 27, viii. 2, ix. 81; comp. 1 Cor. 
ix. 2h. 

4 Not, therefore, as Hermann interprets, 
6ca vouov ov KkatéAvoa,” through the law re- 
jected by myself.” 

5 He indeed also specifies the interpreta- 
tion, by which vouov is understood of the 
gospel, as wellas the view, which takes vonov 
of the Mosaic law, but elucidates the rela- 
tion of dca by Deut. xviii. 18. He neverthe- 


less evidently gives the preference to the 
interpretation given above. 

6 Comp. Lipsius, U.c. p. 81 f.; Weiss. bid. 
Theol. p. 363; Moller on de Wette, p. 50. 

7 Theodoret, Corn. & Lapide, Hammond, 
Grotius, and others ; also Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius. 

8 As Winer, ‘‘ lex legem sustulit ; ipsa lex, 
cum non posset mihisalutem impertire, mei 
me juris fecit atque a suo imperio libera- 
vit,” ‘the law removed the law; the law 
itself, since it could not impart salvation to 
me, made me my own master, and freed 
me from its dominion.’’ Olshausen, Mat- 
thias, and likewise Hofmann, who under- 
stand it to refer to the knowledge acquir- 
ed through the law, that it was impossible 
to attain righteousness in the way of the 


92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


the context the reference to the pedagogic functions of the law, iii. 24, which 
is found by Beza,' Calvin, Wolf, and others ; also by Matthies, who, how- 
ever, understands dia as quite through. De Wette thus explains the peda- 
gogic thought which he supposes to be intended: ‘‘ By my having thorough- 
ly lived in the law and experienced its character in my own case, I have 
become conscious of the need of a higher moral life, the life in the Spirit ; 
and through the regeneration of my inner man I have made my way from the 
former to the latter.” So, also, in all essential points, Wieseler, although the 
usus paedagogicus, ‘* pedagogical use,” of the law does not produce regener- 
ation and thereby moral liberation from its yoke (which, however, dvd vduov 
must affirm), but only awakens the longing after it (Rom. vii. 21. ff.), and 
_ prepares the ground for justification and sanctification. The inner deliver- 
ance from the the yoke of the law takes place dvd rvetuartoc (v. 18 ; Rom. 
viii. 2). A clear commentary on our passage is Rom. vii. 4-6. — iva 826 Chow] 
that I might liveto God, that my life (brought about by that axédavov) might 
be dedicated to God, and should not therefore again serve the véuoc,*—which 
is the case with him who 4 karédvoe ravta radww oixodouet (ver. 18).4 — Xpior@ 
cuvectaipoat| Situation in which he finds himself through that dé véyov 
vouw aréGavov, and accompanying information how this event took place in 
him. Corresponding with this, afterwards in ver. 20, (6 . . . Xpuord¢ con- 
tains information as to the way in which iva Ge Cyow was realized in him, 
With Christ I am crucified, thus expressing the consciousness of moral fel- 
lowship, brought about by faith, in the atoning death of Christ,—a subjec- 
tive fellowship, in which the believer knows that the curse of the law is 
accomplished on himself because it is accomplished on Christ,° and at the 
same time that his pre-Christian ethical state of life, which was subject to 
the law, is put an end to (vou6 axédavov).° Observe also how in this very 
passage it is evident from the whole context, that civ in ovvecraip. and in 
the corresponding expressions” denotes not the mere typical character of 
Christ or the resemblance to Him (Baumgarten-Crusius), but the actual fe- 
lowship, which, as accomplished and existing in the consciousness of faith, 
is matter of real experience. On the perfect, which expresses the blessed 
feeling of the continuance of what had taken place, comp. vi. 14. Here it 
is the continuance of the liberation of the moral personal life from the law, 
which was begun by the crucifixion with Christ. 

Ver. 20. Za dé ovkére éyo, CH dé év euol Xpiotéc] The comma which is 


law,—which righteousness, therefore, could 
only be attained by means of faith ; comp. 
Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, also Ewald, whose 
interpretation would seem to call for é&a 
Tov VoMoV. 

1 “* Lex enim terrens conscientiam ad Chris- 
tum adducit, qui unus vere efficit, ut moria- 
mur legi, quoniam nos justificando tollit 
conscientiae terrores,” ‘‘for the law by ter- 
rifying the conscience leads to Christ, who 
only effects it that we die to the law, since 
by justifying us He removes the terrors of 
conscience.” 


2‘*Having passed quite through the law, 
I have it behind me, and am no longer 
bound to it.’’ 

3 iva Oca Sjow is therefore not (with Chry- 
sostom, Cajetanus, Calvin, and others) to 
be joined to Xptor@ ovvectavpwma; for it 
essentially belongs to the completeness of 
the thought introduced by yap. 

4 Comp., moreover, Rom. vi. 11. 

5 Comp. iii. 13 (6ca vouov amePavor). 

6 Comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 4, and on Col. ii. 
20. 

7 Rom. vi. 8; Col. ii. 12, 20, e al. 


CHAP. II., 20. 93 


usually placed after ¢6 dis correctly expunged by Lachmann, Riickert, 
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Hofmann ; for, if f... 
éyé were not to be conjoined, aaad must have stood before oixér:. The 
second 0é is our but indeed after a negative,’ and ¢@ and ¢7 are on both occa- 
sions emphatically prefixed : alive however no longer am I, but alive indeed is 
Christ in me ; whereby the new relation of life is forcibly contrasted to the 
previously expressed relation of death (Xpior@ cuvect.). After the crucifixion 
of Christ followed His new life ; he, therefore, who is crucified with Christ, 
thenceforth dives also with Him ; his whole pre-Christian moral personality is, 
in virtue of that fellowship of death, no longer in life (6 ratad¢ aitov avd pwroe 
ovvecravpodn, Rom. vi. 6), and Christ is the principle of life in him. This 
change is brought about by faith (see the sequel), inasmuch as in the 
believer, according to the representation here given of Paul’s own experi- 
ence, it is no longer the individual personality that is the agent of life,? but 
Christ, who is present in him (through the Spirit, Rom. viii. 9 f.; Eph. iii. 
16 f.), and works, determines, and rules everything in him, (6 dé ovkére é6, 
CH d& év éwol Xprordg : The mind of Christ is in him (1 Cor. ii. 16), the heart 
of Christ beats in him (Phil. i. 8), and Christ’s power is effectual in him. 
[See Note XLI., p. 98.] Thereby is the proof of the words iva OG Chow 
rightly given.* — 4 dé viv (6 év capxi x.t.4.] Explanation of what has just 
been said, (@.. . Xproréce : but that which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith 
on, etc. This explanation is placed by dé in formal contradistinction to the 
preceding apparent paradox. The emphasis, however, lies on viv, now, 
namely, since the beginning of my Christian condition of life, so that a glance 
is thrown back to the time before the Xpioré cvvectatpouar, and viv corre- 
sponds with ovxére. Ny is often understood * in contrast not with the pre- 
Christian life, but with the future life after death.° A reference of this 
kind is, however, entirely foreign to the context, does not harmonize with 
the emphasis which is laid on viv by its position, and is by no means re- 
quired by év capxi ; for this addition to (4 is made by Paul simply with a 
view to indicate that after his conversion the material form of his life re- 
mained the same, although its ethical nature had become something entirely 
different. — év capxi] denotes life in the natural human phenomenal form of 
the body consisting of flesh. The context does not convey any reference to 
the ethical character of the capé (as sedes peccati, ‘‘the seat of sin”).°— é 
mioter] not per jidem, ‘‘by faith,” but, corresponding to év capki, in faith ; 
so that faith—and indeed (comp. i. 16) the faith in the great sum and sub- 
stance of the revelation received, in the Son of God * — is the specific element 
in which my life moves and acts and is developed. It is prefixed emphat- 
ically, in contrast to the entirely different pre-Christian sphere of life, which 





1 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171. 

2“*Mortuus est Saulus,” “Saul is dead,” 
Erasmus. 

3 See on Rom. vi. 10. 

4 As by Erasmus, Grotius (adhuc), Riickert, 
Usteri, Schott, following Augustine and 
Theodoret. 


5 Rather: after the rapovoia, “‘or ap- 
pearing of Christ.” 

6 Comp. Phil. i. 22; 2 Cor. x. 3. 

7 Chrysostom, Beza, and others. 

8 Notice the anarthrous miore, and then 
the article affixed to the more precise defini- 
tion, 


94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


was the vdu0c. — rot ayarhoavréc pe x.7.2.] points out the special historical 
fact of salvation, which is the subject-matter of the faith in the Son of God, 
giving impulse to this new life.’ Kai is explanatory, adding the practical 
wroof of the love. Observe also the wé and irép éuod (see on i. 4) as expres- 
sive of the conscious and assured jiducia in the jides.°—Lastly, the construc- 
tion is such, that 6 is the accusative of the object to (4, and the whole runs 
on in connection : the life which I live, I live, etc.* The interpretation : 
quod vero attinet, quod, ‘‘ which, indeed, is of importance that,” etc. (Winer), 
is indeed grammatically admissible,‘ in so far as 6 is likewise retained as the 
accusative of the object ; but it needlessly injures the flow of the discourse. 

Ver. 21. Negative side, opposed to an antagonistic Judaism, of the 
life which Paul (from ver. 19) has described as his own. By this negative, 
with the grave reason assigned for it, ei yap x.7.4., the perverse conduct of 
Peter is completely condemned. — Ido not annul (as is done by again assert- 
ing the validity of the law) the grace ef God (which has manifested itself 
through the atoning death of Christ). —av’eré] as in iii. 15, Luke vii. 30, 
1 Cor. i. 19, 1 Tim. v. 12, Heb. x. 28: make of none effect ; see. the sequel. 
It is here the annulling, practically involved in the Judaistic courses, of the 
grace of God in Christ, which is in fact rendered inoperative and cannot 
make righteous, if righteousness is furnished by the law. The rejection of 
grace (Vulgate and others, abjicto) which is involved in this, is a practical 
rejection.* As to avereiv generally, which does not occur until after Poly- 
bius, see Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 12.—ei yap x«.7.2.] justifies what has 
just been said, ov« adeTté. — dia véuov] through the law, namely, as the insti- 
tute which brings about justification by virtue of the works done in harmony 
with it.° This is emphatically prefixed, so that Xpioréc corresponds in the 
apodosis. — dwpedv] not: without result (Erasmus, Paraphr., Piscator), a 
meaning which it never has either in classical authors (in whom it occurs in 
the sense of gratis only) or in the LXX., but: without reason, without cause." 
Chrysostom justly says : repitréc 6 Tov Xpiorov Yavaroc, ‘‘ the death of Christ 
would be superfluous,” which was the very act of the grace which desired to 
justify men. This death would have taken place unnecessarily ; it would have 
~ been, as it were, an act of superfluity,*® if that which it was intended to 
effect were attainable by way of the law. Erasmus aptly remarks, ‘‘ est 
autem ratiocinatio ab impossibili,” ‘it is, however, arguing from what is im- 


1 Comp. Rom. viii. 37; Eph. v. 2. 
2 Luther well says, ‘‘Hae voces: dilexit 
me, plenissimae sunt fidei, et qui hoe breve 


love and Christian life. 
3 See Bernhardy, p. 106; Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. I. p. 393 f.; Dissen, a@ Dem. de cor. 


pronomen me illa fide dicere et sibi appli- 
care posset, qua Paulus, etiam futurus esset 
optimus disputator una cum Paulo contra 
legem,’”’ ‘‘These words, ‘Loved me,’ are 
most full of security, and he who could ut- 
ter and apply to himself this short pronoun 
me in the faith wherein Paul did, would be 
the best disputant with Paul against the 
law.” But this faith is not the fides formata 
(Catholics, including Bisping and Reith- 
mayr), although it is the source of Christian 


p. 302. 

4 See on Rom. vi. 10. 

5 So that 7 xdpis ovKére yiverar xapts, Rom. 
XING; 

6 Comp. on iii. 11. 

7 As 1 Sam. xix. 5, Ps. xxxiy. 8 (not Jobi. 
9): comp. John xv. 25; Ecclus. xx. 21, Xxix. 
6 f.; Ignat. Trall. 10, Swpeav oty amo0Ovickw, 
“T do not die in vain.” 

8 Comp. Holsten. 


NOTES. 95 


possible.” Observe the exclusive expression of the clause assigning the rea- 
son of ov« av_erd, which allows of no half-and-half division of justification 
between law and grace. 


Note.—Paul is discreet enough to say nothing as to the impression which his 
speech made on Peter. Its candor, resolution, and striking force of argument 
would, however, be the less likely to miss their aim in the case of Peter, seeing 
that the latter was himself convinced of Christian freedom (Acts xv. 7 ff.), and 
had played the hypocrite in Antioch only by connivance from fear of men (ver. 13). 
But as, according to this view, an opposition of principle between the two 
apostles cannot be conceded (contrary to the view of Baur and his followers), 
we must abstain from assuming that this occurrence at Antioch had any lasting 
and far-reaching consequences ; for it simply had reference to a moral false step 
taken in opposition to Peter’s own better judgment, and the scandal arising 
therefrom. It was therefore so essentially of a personal nature, that, if known 
at all by Luke, it might well have rentained unmentioned in Acts—considering 
the more comprehensive historical destination of that work—without suggest- 
ing any suspicion that the absence of mention arose from any inlentional con- 
cealment (comp. on Acts xv.). Such a concealment is but one of the numberless 
dishonest artifices of which the author of Acts has been accused, ever since 
certain persons have thought that they recognized in our epistle ‘‘the mutely 
eloquent accuser of the Book of Acts” (Schwegler), which is alleged to throw 
«a veil of concealment’’ over the occurrences at Jerusalem and Antioch (Baur, 
Paulus, I. p. 148, ed. 2). 


Norres py AMERICAN Epritor. 


XXX. Ver. 1. raAw avéGnv. 


Sieffert, while agreeing with Meyer as to the identification of this visit with 
that in Acts xv., shows that Meyer’s argument as to any discrepancy between 
this epistle and the account in Acts is based on the assumption that Paul is 
still occupied with the proof that he had not learned his gospel from the other 
apostles—a proof which was finished in ver. 24 of the preceding chapter. Here 
he cites two other incidents in his life, showing his equal standing as an apos- 
tle. Hence there was no need for any allusion to a second visit. Baur espe- 
cially uses this seeming discrepancy to assail the historical accuracy of the Book 
of Acts. Sanday well remarks: ‘‘ Discrepancies greater than any that appear 
here may be observed in the accounts of events separated from their record by 
but a small interval of time and attested by numerous witnesses . . . So 
shallow and slight is that house of cards which forms one of the most imposing 
structures of modern negative criticism.” The full investigation of the sub- 
ject belongs to the exposition of Acts. 


XXXII. Ver. 1. xa? Titov. 


There should be no difficulty in regarding Titus as beionging to the ‘ cer- 
tain others” of Acts xv. He is mentioned here to the exclusion of the rest, in 
view of what follows in ver. 3. 


96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


XXXII. Ver. 2. kaz7’ idiav dé totic dokovaw. 


Sieffert considers Meyer’s inference that the account requires the general dis- 
cussion to be first, incorrect. So also Lightfoot. 


XXXII, Ver. 5. pevdddeAgor. 


Sieffert substitutes along note beginning: ‘ The continuous agreement between 
Gal. ii. 3-5 and Acts xv. 1 sqq., which has been cited already at ver. 1 for the 
general identity of the journey of Paul to Jerusalem mentioned in both places, 
decides at once against the assumption of Meyer, that as the accountsin Gal. ii. 
and Acts xv. relate to different occurrences respecting the same journey of Paul, 
so the two passages, Gal. ii. 2 (dveféunv avroic) 3-5 and Acts xv. 4, 12 report two 
distinct matters, both of which, nevertheless, could have occurred at the same 
visit of the apostle to Jerusalem. But there is just as little foundation for re- 
garding the account of Acts excluded by that of Paul, unless they are both, es- 
pecially that of Paul, misunderstood, and the distinction between their purpose 
ignored ; that of Paul being directed to the proof of his personal dignity, and that 
of Acts to the historical exhibition of the general ecclesiastical development. On 
the contrary, it is manifest that the account in Acts is in every respect adapted 
to complete the brief declarations of Paul. Thus while these declarations contain 
no indication as to whether Paul had only one or several conferences with the 
church, the account of the latter is furnished by Acts.” 


XXXIV. Ver. 8. ‘O yap évepynoac. 


«‘By this is not meant the call to the apostolate (Fritzsche), or the mere 
equipment and making fit (Schott, Meyer, Wieseler), but the entire efficacious 
operation of God for the successful execution of the apostolic calling (cf. 
Winer, Usteri, de Wette, Hofmann), but it is not to be limited to the gift of 
the results (Baur).’’ Sieffert. 


XXXV. Ver. 10. trav rrwyov. 


The ‘‘ poor’ are Christianized Jews, mainly in Palestine (cf. Rom. xv. 26, 27 ; 
1 Cor. xvi. 3), but not necessarily confined thereto. In going to the Gentiles, 
such Jewish converts from the diaspora as would be found destitute were to be 
eared for. Cf. Hadie. 


XXXVI. Ver. 10. Entire Verse. 


«The private conference of Paul with the pillars of the church here re- 
ported is not mentioned in Acts. It may be readily inferred that with this ac- 
count the words, Acts xv. 6, ovry7yOnoav de of aréoToAot Kai oi TpeoBdrepos ietv 
mepi TOU Adyov TobTov are to be combined, as, e.g., Hbrard and Pfleiderer do in 
different ways. By including in the doxotvrec the elders present with Paul 
(Ebrard), or believing that they are not directly excluded by the wording 
(Pfleiderer), they find an account indicated of a private conference with the 
apostles and elders entirely corresponding to that in Acts. Ebrard, however, 
regards this as only a preliminary conference, and not until after the contro- 
versy had increased (ver. 7) does Peter enter the assembly, in which, according 
to ver. 12, tav r6 rAFOoc, and, according to ver. 22, 647 7 éxxAnoia is present ; while 
Pfleiderer believes that the transactions according to Acts took place in only 


NOTES. 9% 


anarrow circle, and only the result was erroneously represented as a formal 
resolution of the church. But the latter view is excluded by the fact that 
already in ver. 12 the church (dv 70 7A790c) is regarded as present. Even the 
former view can scarcely be supported, as the silence of the entire body that 
follows the address of Peter is manifestly in opposition to the idea of the oc- 
currence of much controversy after the coming together of the apostles and 
elders, as in them the entire body is present and participates. All, therefore, 
that is related in Acts xv. 6-29 refers to the only congregational meeting con- 
ducted by apostles and elders, while that which is referred to Gal. ii. 3-5 
belongs to the public transactions. After this there remains in the report 
given in Acts no room for a private conference ; this must be referred to the 
time of the informal preliminary conference, Acts xy. 4, since, according to the 
representation of Paul, its temporal priority isnot only possible, but even prob- 
able (cf. v. 2). Accordingly, if the private conference, Gal. ii. 6-10, is entirely 
passed by in Acts as outside of its historical purpose, then what is reported in 
Acts xv._cannot be excluded by the former ; for otherwise the chief antago- 
nisms between the two accounts would have respect to the relation and position 
of the apostolic pillars. But such is not the case. For not only the recogni- 
tion of Paul’s commission to the heathen by the original apostles, but also 
their essential doctrinal agreement with Paul in respect to various interests 
and offices are indicated by the public addresses and resolutions of Acts xv.” 
(Sieffert). 
XXXVII. Ver. 11. cata tpdowrov aitw avréotny k.T.A. 


Meyer’s objection to Bengel’s interpretation does not seem valid. What if 
the question be left unanswered as to the persons from whom the condemnation 
proceeded? The act carried with it its own condemnation. So Alford, 
Lightfoot, Sanday, Sieffert. Meyer is supported by Ellicott, Eadie, and Riddle 
in the American Lange. The argument that the condemnation must have been 
public, or a public rebuke would not have been given, does not meet the case, 
since the public offence required a public protest on the part of Paul. 


XXXVIII. Ver. 15. duaptwdoi. 


duaptwiot is used in preference to ‘vn, not without a shade of irony, as better 
enforcing St. Paul’s argument (Lightfoot), 


XXXIX. Ver. 16. cidoreg dé bt1 K.7.A. 


‘According to Sieffert, ver. 16 forms a new sentence, and the é:ddrec is a parti- 
eipial foundation to the cai 7yeic. The knowledge, too, is not merely discur- 
sive, but that which is rooted in the sense of guilt and the consciousness of 
communion with Christ. 


XL. Ver. 16. ’Edv p7 k.7.A. 


The obedientia activa must not be excluded from the meritorious cause of 
justification, as the remark of Meyer would imply. ‘‘ By his active obedience 
Christ most exactly fulfilled the divine law in our stead, in order that penitent 
sinners, applying to themselves, by true faith, this vicarious fulfilment of the 
law, might be accounted righteous before God the judge, Gal. iv. 4,5; Matt. 
v.17; Rom. x, 4” (Hollaz). 


7 


98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


XLI. Ver. 20. 76 dé obkéte eyo. 


‘«« Wondrous words! I am so identified with Him, that His death is my death. 
When He was crucified, I was crucified with Him. Jam so much one with Him 
under law, and in suffering and death, that when He died to the law I died to 
the law’’ (Eadie). The application of this to the argument against Peter is 
well presented by Brenz: ‘‘ He who believes in Christ is incorporated with 
Christ by faith, and becomes His member. But to him who is a member of 
Christ’s body belong also all the blessings of Christ which He Himself has 
acquired by the cross and death. What then has he acquired? First, Christ, 
by His cross, broke down and removed the partition between Jews and Gentiles, 
and made of the two one people, i.e., by His own blood He so blotted out the 
law of Moses that there is in Christ no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. 
When, therefore, by faith I am incorporated with Christ, I am participant of 
this blessing, so that even though I do not live according to the political law 
of Moses, nevertheless I have been accepted by God for Christ’s sake. Secondly, 
Christ by His death and blood removed the handwriting which was against us, 
Col. 2. This handwriting is the conscience of sin, which is written in our 
heart by the law, manifesting sins and condemning us. When, then, I am 
incorporated with Christ by faith, I become participant of this blessing, that the 
handwriting of my conscience does not pertain at all to me, because it has 
been blotted out by the blood of Christ, nor has it any longer any authority or 
strength, because its seals have been removed by Christ’s cross, and its letters 
have been blotted out by Christ’s blood. This is verily to be crucified with 
Christ.”’ 


CHAP, III. 99 


CHA PTER~ IL. 


Ver. 1. After éGdacxave Elz. (and Matth.) has rq aAnbeia uh reiBeohar, against 
decisive evidence. An explanatory addition from v. 7. — év iuiv] is wanting 
in A BC 8, min., and several vss. and Fathers, and is omitted by Lachm. But 
not being required, and not understood, how easily might it be passed over ! 
There was no reason in the text for attaching it as a gloss, least of all to xa7’ 
dpGaAnove xpoeyp. (as conjectured by Schott), for these words were in fact perfectly 
clear by themselves. Justly defended also by Reiche.—Ver. 8. évevAeynfycovtar] 
Elz. gives evAoy., against decisive testimony [8 A BC D E]. In Acts iii. 25 also, 
évevdoy. is exchanged in several authorities for the usual simple form. — Ver, 10. 
According to decisive evidence [NA BC DEF Gl, orc is to be adopted (with 
Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, and Tisch.) before éz«utupatac. — Ver. 12. After avra 
Elz, has av@pwroc, against decisive testimony. Addition from the LXX., 
Lev. xvili. 5; Rom. x. 5.— Ver. 13. Instead of yéyp. ydp, read, on pre- 
ponderating testimony, with Lachm. and ‘Tisch., 670 yéypantac approved 
by Griesb. The former arose from ver. 10.— Ver. 17. After Ocov, Elz., 
Scholz, Reiche, have ei¢ Xpio7dv, in opposition to A B © &, min., several 
vss. and Fathers. Added as a gloss, in order, after ver. 16, to make it 
evident from ver. 24 what covenant is intended, although this is obvious 
from the context, and the addition was therefore by no means necessary (as 
maintained by Ewald and Wieseler). In the sequel, ér7 is (with Griesb., 
Lachm., Scholz, Tisch.) to be placed after the number} according to decisive 
evidence [SN ABC DEF G]. — Ver. 19. rpoceré6n] Griesb. and Scholz (follow- 
ing Mill and Bengel) read é7é67. Not sufficiently attested by D* F G and afew 
min., vss., and Fathers ; and the compound verb appeared to conflict with ver. 
15. — Instead of © éx7jyyeArar, only Land many min., along with some Fathers, 
read 6 érymyy. A reading arising from the fact that @ was not understood. — 
Ver. 21. tov Ocov] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. (bracketed by 
Lachm.), and is therefore so decisively attested that it cannot be regarded as 
an explanatory addition. The self-evident meaning and the previous reference 
without tov Oeov (see ver. 16 ff,) led to the omission. — Ver. 21. dv ék vouov Hv] 
Many variations. F G have merely éx vémov ;! D*, Damase, éx vopov iv ; A BC, 
Cyr., &k vouov (B, év véuw) dv 7v. In default of internal evidence, the latter is, 
with Lachm., Tisch., Schott, to be preferred as the best attested (comp. N, éx 
vouov nv av). The omission of dy arose from the 7 following, just as easily as 
the omission of 7 from the following 7. The Receptais to be considered as the 
restoration of the original dv in a wrong place. — Ver. 23. ovyxexAeiopévor] A B 
D* F G 8&, 31, Clem. (once) Cyr. Damase. read cvykAsiouévor. Recommended 
by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Scholz, Schott [Tisch., 1872]. The Recepta, spe- 
cially defended by Reiche, is an ancient emendation of the not-understood pres- 


1 Which Buttmann in the Stud. w. Krit. 1858, p. 488, considers as probably the original 
reading. 


100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


ent participle. — Ver. 28. eic¢ éore €v Xpiotd "Inoov] A has éore Xprorov ’Inoov ; and 
&, gore €v Xpiotd "I, But ei¢ was very easily suppressed by the preceding tveic, 
and then év Xpioto “Ijcov was altered in accordance with the beginning of ver. 
29. 'The reading év instead of ei¢ in F G and several vss., also Vulgate, It., 
and Fathers, is an interpretation. — Ver. 29. xa‘] is wanting in ABC DE 8, 
89**, and a few vss. and many Fathers, and is expunged by Lachmann, Tisch., 
and Schott ; justly, because it was inserted for the purpose of connection. 


ConTENTS.—Paul now begins to unfold to his readers that righteousness 
comes not from the law, but from faith. With this view, after having ex- 
pressed censure and surprise, he refers in the first place to their own expe- 
rience, namely, te their reception of the Holy Spirit (vv. 1-5). He then 
passes on to Abraham, who had been justified by faith, and of whom beliey- 
ers were the sons who, in conformity with Scripture, were to enjoy with 
Abraham the blessing announced to him (vv. 6-9). For those that trust in 
works of the law are cursed, and by tbe law can no man be justified (vv: 
10-12). It is Christ who by His atoning death has freed us from the curse 
of the law, in order that this blessing should reach the Gentiles through 
Christ, and the promised Holy Spirit should be received through faith (vy. 
13, 14). But the covenant of promise concluded with Abraham, which 
moreover applied not merely to Abraham, but also to Christ, cannot be ab- 
rogated by the law which arose long after (vv. 15-18). This leads the apos- 
tle to the question as to the destination of the law, which he briefly answers 
in ver. 19 positively, and then in vv. 20-23 negatively, to the effect that the 
law is not opposed to the promises. Before the period of faith, the law had 
the office of a za:daywyé¢ in reference to Christ ; but after the appearance of 
faith this relation came to an end, for faith brought believers to the sonship 
of God, because by baptism fellowship with Christ was established, and there- 
upon all distinctions apart from Christ vanished away (vv. 238-28). And 
this fellowship with Christ includes the being children of Abraham and 
heirs of the promises. 

Ver. 1. O irrational Galatians! With this address of severe censure Paul 
turns again to his readers, after the account of his meeting with Peter ; for 
his reprimand to the latter (ii. 15-21) had indeed so pithily and forcibly 
presented the intermixture of Judaism with faith as absurd, that the excited 
apostle, in re-addressing readers who had allowed themselves to be carried 
away to that same incongruous intermingling, could not have seized on 
any predicate more suitable or more naturally suggested. The more in- 
appropriate, therefore, is the idea of Jerome,’ who discovered in. this 
expression a natural weakness of understanding peculiar to the nation. 
But the testimony borne on the other hand by Themist.? to the Galatian 
readiness to learn, and acuteness of understanding—the consciousness of 
which would make the reproach all the more keenly felt—is also*® to be set 
aside as irrelevant.* — ric iwac éBacKxave] tic conveys his astonishment at the 


1Comp. also Erasmus, and Spanheim ad 3 Notwithstanding Hofmann. 
Callim. H. in Del. 184, p. 439. 4Comp. Luke xxiy. 25; Tit. ili. 3. 
2 Or, 23, in Wetstein, oni. 6. 


CHAP) TET. «ls 101 
great ascendency which the perversion had succeeded in attaining, and by 
way of emphatic contrast the words ric iuac are placed together : Who hath 
bewitched you, before whose eyes, etc. ?*— Bacxaivw (from Bala, to speak) 
means here to cast aspell upon (mala lingua nocere, Virg. Eel. vii. 28), to bewitch 
by words, to enchant?*—a strong mode of describing the perversion, quite in keep- 
ing with the indignant feeling which could hardly conceive it possible. * 
Hence the word is not to be explained, with Chrysostom and his followers: eho 
has envied you, that is, your previous happy condition ?—although this signifi- 
cation is of very frequent occurrence, usually indeed with the dative,* but also 
with the accusative.* — oi¢ kav’ dd0-aApwovc Ino. Xp. rpoeypagy év buiv éecravpopévoc | 
This fact, which ought to have guarded the Galatians from being led away 
to a Judaism opposed to the doctrine of atonement, and which makes their 
apostasy the more culpable, justifies the question of surprise, of which the 
words themselves form part ; hence the mark of interrogation is to be placed 
after éoravp. — kar’ o¢dadAnoic] before the eyes. See examples in Wetstein.*— 
xpoeypagn| is explained by most expositors, either as antea, ‘‘ previously,” 
depictus est, ‘‘ portrayed,” ” or palam, depictus est, ‘‘ openly portrayed,” * with 
which Hofmann compares the brazen serpent in the wilderness, and Caspari° 
even mixes up a stigmatization with the marks of Christ’s wounds, which 
Paul, according to vi. 17, is supposed to have borne on his own body. But 
these interpretations are opposed not only by the words év iviv (see below), 
but also by the wswsloquendi. For, however frequent may be the occurrence 
of ypagev in the sense of to paint, this signification can by no means be 
proved as to xpoypddev."” The Greek expression for showing how to paint, 
tracing out, in the sense of a picture given to copy, is iroypagew. Following 
Elsner and others, Morus, Flatt, and Schott understand it as palam scriptus 
est, ‘‘ was openly described :”"! ‘ita Christus vobis est ob oculos palam de- 
scriptus, gwasi in tabula vobis praescriptus,” ‘‘ Christ was so openly described to 
you, as though set before you on a panel,” Morus, Thisis inconsistent with év huir, 
for these words cannot be joined with écravpwuévoe (see below) ; and Schott’s 
interpretation : in animis vestris, ‘‘in your minds’”—so that what was said 
figuratively by oic . . . spoeyp. is now more exactly defined sermone proprio, 
‘Cin the strict sense,” by év tuiv —makes the év iviv appear simply as some- 
thing quite foreign and unsuitable in the connection, by which the figure is 


1 Comp. v. 7. 

2 Bos, Luercitatt. p. 173 f., and Wetstein. 

3 Comp. Backavia, fascinatio, sorcery, 
Plat. Phaed. p. 95 B; Backavos, Plut. Symp. 
v.73 aBaokavtos, unenchanted. 

4 Kiihner, If. p. 247; Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 462; Piers. ad Herodian. p. 470 f. 

5In Ecclus. xiv. 6, Herodian. ii. 4. 11. 

§ Comp. cat’ odumata, Soph. Ant. 756, and 
on ii. 11. 

7 Chrysostom, Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, 
Beza, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others ; also 
Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr. 

® Most modern expositors, following Cal- 
vin; including Winer, Paulus, Riickert, 
Usteri, Matthies, Olshausen, Baumgarten- 


Crusius, de Wette, Reiche, Ewald, Wieseler, 
Hofmann, Holsten. 

* In the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 211 f. 

10 Not even in Arist. Av. 450. See Rettig 
in Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 97. 

1 Macesx. 86; Lucian, 2im. 51.7 Plut: 
Mor. p. 408 D, Demetr. 46, Camill. 11 e¢ al. 
On this meaning is based the interpretation 
of Ambrose, Augustine, and Lyra, **He 
was proscribed, that is, condemned,”’ which 
is indeed admissible so far as usage goes 
(Roly ba xexxdis) 210) 12) sexexexdi 5 22) elles 
Brut. 27), but quite unsuitable to the 
context. Comp. Vulgate: proscriptus est, 
instead of which, however, Lachmann has 
praescriptus est. 


102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

marred. [See Note XLII., p. 159.] Inthe two other passages where Paul uses 
tpoypddey (Rom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 3) it means to write beforehand, so that xpd 
has a temporal and not a local signification ;' nor is the meaning different in 
Jude 4 (see Huther). And so it is to be taken here.* Paul represents his 
previous preaching of Christ as crucified to the Galatians figuratively as a 
writing, which he had previously written (xpoeypadn) in their hearts (év ipiv).§ 
In this view kar’ d¢8aAuoic is that trait of the figure, by which the personal 
oral instruction is characterized : Paul formerly wrote Christ before their eyes 
in their hearts, when he stood before them and preached the word of the cross, 
which through his preaching impressed itself on their hearts. By his vivid illus- 
tration he recalls the fact to his readers, who had just been so misled by a 
preaching altogether different (i. 6). With no greater boldness than in 
2 Cor. iii. 2 f., he has moulded the figure according to the circumstances of the 
case, as he is wont to do in figurative language ;* but this does not warrant a 
pressing uf the figure to prove traits physically imcompatible.*° Jerome and 
others® have indeed correctly kept to the meaning olim scribere, ‘‘of writing 
formerly,” ’ but have quite inappropriately referred it to the prophecies of the 
O. T. : ‘*quibus ante oculos praedictio fuit Christi in crucem sublati,” ‘‘ be- 
fore whose eyes there has been a prediction of Christ raised upon the cross,” 
Hermann. Apart from the circumstance that the precise mode of death by 
crucifixion is not mentioned in the prophetical utterances, this would consti- 
tute a ground for surprise on the part of the apostle of a nature much too 
general, not founded on the personal relation of Paul to his readers, and 
therefore by no means adequate as a motive ; and, in fact, vv. 2-4 carry 
back their memory to the time, when Paul was at work among them. — év buiv] 
is not, with Grotius, Usteri, and others, to be set aside as a Hebrew pleonasm 
(DD3 WS), but is to be understood as in animis vestris, ‘‘in your minds,” ® 
and belongs to zpoeypady ; in which case, however, the latter cannot mean 
either palam pictus, ‘‘ openly portrayed,” or palam scriptus est, ‘* openly 
written,” because then éy juiv would involve a contradictio in adjecto, ‘‘ con- 
tradiction in what is added,” and would not be a fitting epexegesis of oic,® 
for the depicting and the placarding cannot take place otherwise than on some- 
thing external. To take év iyiv as among you and connect it with rpocyp., would 
yield not a strengthening of oic (as de Wette holds), but an empty addition, 
from which Reiche and Wieseler also obtain nothing more than a purport 
obvious of itself.” On the other hand, Hofmann hits upon the expedient of 


1 Comp. Ptol. viii. 25. 15, and see Hermann 7 Rettig. however, remarking undecid- 


on our passage. 

2So taken correctly also by Matthias, 
who, however, explains the expression 
from the idea of an a@mudet used against the 
enchantment. But this idea would presup- 
pose some secret writing, the very opposite 
of which is conveyed by the expression. 

3 Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 2f. 

4 Comp. iv. 19. 

5 An objection urged by Reiche. 

6 Also Hermann, Bretschneider, and Ret- 
tig, /.c. p. 98 ff. 


edly, that it may also mean palam scribere, 
‘*to write openly.” 

8 Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 2; Soph. Phil. 1309 : 
ypahov dpevav cow; Aesch. Prom. 791, Suppl. 
991, Choeph. 450. 

® Winer, comp. Schott. 

10 Reiche, ‘‘id factum esse a se, gentium 
apostolo, inter eos praesente,” ‘* that it was 
done by himself, the apostle of the Gen- 
tiles, while present with them” (not, it 
might be, alio loco or per homines sublestae 
Jidei, not clanculum, but cunctis, publico 


CHAPS Ti, 2 103 

dividing the words cic . . . éaravp. into two independent sentences : (1) Before 
whose eyes is Jesus Christ ; (2) as the Crucified One, He has been freely and pub- 

liely delineated among you. But, apart from the linguistically incorrect view 
of rpoeypadn, this dismemberment would give to the language of the passage 
a violently abrupt form, which is the more intolerable, as Paul does not 
dwell further on the asyndetically introduced zpoeyp. év dbyuiv éotavp. or 
subjoin to it any more particular statement, but, on the contrary, in ver. 2 
brings forward asyndetically a new thought. Instead of introducing it ab- 
ruptly in a way so liable to misapprehension, he would have subjoined 
mpoeypaon —if it was not intended to belong to oi¢ —in some simple form 
by yap or or or o¢ or écye. Without any impropriety, he might, on the other 
hand, figuratively represent that he who preaches Christ to others writes 
(not placards or depicts) Christ before their eyes in their hearts. Most ex- 
positors connect év buiv with éoravp., and explain either as propter vos (Koppe), 

contrary to the use of év with persons (see oni. 24) ; or, unsuitably to the figu- 
rative idea kar’ d63aApoi¢ K.7.2., in animis vestris, ‘‘ your minds ;”! or (as 
usually) inter vos, ‘‘among you :” ‘‘so clearly, so evidently. . . just as if 
crucified among you,” Riickert. But the latter must have been expressed 
by Ge év buiv éotavp., and would also presuppose that the apostle’s preaching 
of the cross had embodied a vivid and detailed description of the crucifixion 
It was not this, however, but the fact itself (as the iAaorfpiov), which formed 
the sum and substance of the preaching of the cross ; as is certain from the 

apostle’s letters. Lastly, Luther’s peculiar interpretation, justly rejected by 
Calovius, but nevertheless again adopted in substance by Matthias,—that 
év byiv goravp. is asevere censure, ‘‘ quod Christus, ‘ that Christ’ (namely, after 
the rejection of grace) non vivit, sed mortuus in eis est, ‘does not live, but has 
died in them’ (Heb. vi. 6),” which Paul had laid before them argumentis 
praedictis, ‘‘in the arguments before mentioned”—is as far-fetched, as alien 
from the usual Pauline mode of expression, and as unsuitable to the con- 

text as the view of Cajetanus, that, according to the idea ‘‘ Christ suffers 
in His members” (Col. i. 24), év iu. éoravp. is equivalent to for the sake of 
whom ye have suffered so much. —éoravp.]| as the Crucified One, is with great 
emphasis moved on to the end.? 

Ver. 2. The foolishness of their error is now disclosed to them, by remind- 
ing them of their reception of the Holy Spirit. ‘‘See how effectually he 
treats the topic from experience,” Luther, 1519. — rovro pévov VéAw padeiv ag’ 


eorum conventu, ete., ‘in another place,” 
or, “by men of trifling faith,’ not ‘se- 
eretly;” but ‘‘ before all, in their public 
assembly,’ etc. Wieseler: ‘‘not merely 
From @ distance by means of an epistle.” 

1 To this category belongs Bengel’s mys- 
tical interpretation, ‘‘ forma crucis ejus in 
corde vestro per fidem expressa, ut jam 
vos etiam cum illo crucefigeremini,”’ ‘‘ the 
form of his cross is by faith impressed upon 
your heart, that now you might also be cru- 
cified with Him.’’ Thus the expression would 
signify the killing of the old man which had 


taken place through ethical fellowship in the 
death of Christ, to which év vp. éoraup. is re- 
ferred by Storralso. A similar viewis taken 
by Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 24: that év vuivis 
proleptic, ‘““so that He, as the atoning One, 
came into and abode in you ;” comp. 
Ewald, ‘‘to paint clearly before the eyes 
that Christ is now really crucified in them, 
and, since they have Him in them, He has 
not been crucified for them in vain ;’’ also 
Windischmann. 
2 Comp. 1 Cor. ii, 2, i, 23. 


104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 

iuov} This only—not to speak of other self-confessions, which I might 
demand of you for your refutation—this only I wish to become aware of from 
you. Bengel pertinently remarks : ‘‘ uévov, grave argumentum.” To take 
uadety (with Luther, Bengel, Paulus) in the narrower sense to learn—the 
apostle thus representing himself ironically as a scholar—is justified neither 
by the tone of the context nor by the tenor of the question, which in fact 
concerns not a doctrine, but simply a piece of information ; pavddvo is well 
known in the sense of to come to know, cognoscere.' rovto BobAonat paveiv. 
—a¢’ izev}] is not used instead of rap’ iuov (Riickert) ; for axé also may 
denote a direct paSeiwv.2 And this is what Paul means, for he conceives 
himself speaking with his readers as if they were present. — é& épywv véuov 
«.7.4.] Was it your fulfilment of works which the law prescribes,’ or was 
it the preaching to you of faith (that is, faith in Christ), which caused your 
reception of the Spirit? The rveiya is the Holy Spirit (the personal divine 
principle of the whole Christian nature and life), and the Holy Spirit 
viewed generally according to His very various modes of operation, by 
which He makes Himself known in different individuals ; not merely in 
relation to the miraculous gifts, 1 Cor. xii.-xiv.;* for Paul reminds the 
whole body of his readers of their reception of the Spirit, and it is not till 
ver. 5 that the dvvduerc are specially brought forward as a specific form of 
the operations of the Spirit.*—The 7 which follows means : or, on the other 
hand ; ‘‘ duo directe opposita,” Bengel. The axoy riorewc is explained either 
as the hearing of faith,® or as that which is heard, i.e., the report, the message 
of faith, which treats of faith. axo7 admits of either meaning.” But ricrewe 
is decisive in favor of the latter, for it is never the ‘‘ doctrina fidei,” ‘‘ doc- 
trine of faith” (see on i. 23), but always the subjective faith, which, how- 
ever, as here, may be regarded objectively ; and hence also adherents of 
the second interpretation,® are wrong in taking ziorv¢ as system of doctrine. 
Moreover, axo#, in the sense of preaching (discourse heard), but not in 
the sense of auditio, ‘‘hearing,” is familiar in the N. T. ;* hence Hol- 
sten incorrectly takes ziorewe as the genitive of the subject to axo7c, so 
that the ior is the dxotovca,—a view opposed also by Rom. x. 17%. 
But Hofmann also is incorrect in holding that it should be construed éx 
riorewe axopc (faith in news announced) ; against which the antithesis é& 
épywov vouov is decisive. Through the news concerning faith, which was 
preached to them, the readers had become believers (Rom. x. 17 ; Heb. iv. 
2), and consequently partakers of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, Flatt and 


1 See Acts xxiii. 27; Ex. ii. 4; 2 Mace. vii. 
2; 8 Macc.i.1; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 31; Hell. ii. 
1.1; Aesch. Agam. 615. Comp. Soph. Ged. 
Col. 505. 

2 Comp. especially Col. i. 7; see on 1 Cor. 
xi. 23. 

3 Comp. on ii. 16. 

4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome. 

5 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. IL. 2, p. 27 f. 


6 Reception of the gospel preached: Vul- 


gate, Beza, Bengel, Morus, Ritickert, Usteri, 
Schott, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others. 


7¥For the former, comp. Plat. Theaet. 
p. 112 D; Plut. Mor. p. 41 E; Soph. £7. 30; 
LXX. 1 Sam. xv. 22: and for the latter, 
comp. Plat. Phaed?. p. 274 C ; Dem. 1097.3; 
LXX. Isa. liii. 1; John xii.88; 1 Thess. ii. 
13; Rom. x. 17; Heb. iv. 2; Ecclus. xli. 23. 

8 As Calvin, Grotius, Zachariae, Rosen? 
miiller, and others. 

® So even in Rom. x. 16, John xii. 38, pas- 
sages which Matthias seeks to explain dif- 
ferently. 


CHAP. IIT, 33 105 
Matthies, following a few ancient expositors, have quite arbitrarily and, 
although not without linguistic precedent in the LXX. (1 Sam. xv. 22), 
without any countenance from the N. T., understood axoj¢ as equivalent to 
iraxoye (Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26; 1 Pet. i. 22). The acceptance of the axoy ricrews 
which took place on the part of the readers was understood by them as a 
matter of course, since from this axo# proceeded the reception of the Spirit. 
They were in fact ca//ed through the gospel. 

Ver. 3. Are ye to such a degree irrational ?—pointing to what follows. The 
interrogative view (in opposition to Hofmann) is in keeping with the fervor 
of the language, and is logically justified by the indication of the high degree 
implied in ottw¢.’— évapZauevor rvebuare, viv capki exitedciofe ;] After ye have 
begun by means of the Spirit, are ye now brought to completion by means of the 
flesh? The second part of the sentence is ironical: ‘‘ After ye have made a 
beginning in the Christian life by your receiving the Holy Spirit (ver. 2), 
are ye now to be made perfect by your becoming persons whose life is sub- 
ject to the government of the capé 2? Do ye lend yourselves to such comple- 
tion as this?” In the same measure in which the readers went back to the 
legal standpoint and departed from the life of faith, must they again be 
emptied of the Holy Spirit which they had received, and consequently be re- 
converted from mvevuarixoi into capxixoi (Rom. vii. 5, 14), that is, men who, 
loosed from the influence of the Holy Spirit, are again under the dominion 
of the cap£ which impels to sin (Rom. vii. 14 ff., viii. 7 f., e¢ al.). For the 
law cannot overcome the capé (Rom. vill. 3, 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56). According to 
this view, therefore, rvevua and cape? designate, not Christianity and Judaism 
themselves, but the specific agencies of life in Christianity and Judaism (Rom. 
vii. 5, 6), expressed, indeed, without the article in qualitative contrast as 
Spirit and flesh, but in the obvious concrete application meaning nothing else 
than the Holy Spirit and the unspiritual, corporeal and psychical nature of 
man, which draws him into opposition to God and inclination to sin (see, 
e.g., Rom. iv. 1; John iii. 6). — évapZauevoc] What it is which they have begun, 
is obvious from rveiya éAdBere in ver. 2, namely, the state into which they 
entered through the reception of the Spirit—-the Christian life.* This re- 
ception is ‘‘ the indisputable sign of the existence and working of true Chris- 
tianity,” Ewald. — éziredeicfe] is understood by most modern expositors * as 
middle ;° although Koppe (with whom Riickert agrees) entirely obliterates 
the literal sense by the assumption, that it is put so only for the sake of the 


1 On ovtws, comp. Soph. Ant. 220, odk ear 
ovTw wapos, “isnot so foolish: John iii. 16; 
Gal. i. 6; Heb. xii. 21; and see Voigtliinder, 
ad Lue. D. M. p. 220; Jacob, ad Luc. Alex. 
p. 28. 

2 Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
and many ancient expositors. Riickert, 
Usteri, and Schott believe that capi is 
chosen with special reference to circuamci- 
sion (Eph. ii. 11). But the context by no 
means treats specially of circumcision, and 
the contrast of itself necessarily involved 
TapKt, 


3 Bos, Wolf, and others, as also Schott, 
assume the figurative idea of a race in the 
stadium. But this reference would require 
to be suggested by the context (as in Vv. 7); 
for although émcreActo Oar is used of the com- 
pletion of a race, as of every kind of com- 
pletion (Herodian. viii. 8. 5, iii. 8 17 f., 
iv. 2.7), it has not this special meaning of 
itself, but acquires it from the context. 

4 Including Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wet- 
te, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann. 

5 Comp. Luther, Castalio, and Others. 


106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

contrast and denotes ‘‘tantum id, quod nune inter Gal. fieri solebat, contra- 
rium pristinae eorum sapientiae,” ‘* only that which was now generally oc- 
curring among the Galatians contrary to their former wisdom,” ete. Winer 
explains more definitely : ‘‘carne finire, h. e. ita ad ry capxa se applicare, 
ut in his studiis capxxoic plane acquiescas,” ‘‘ to finish in the flesh, 7.¢., so 
to apply oneself to the flesh as to entirely acquiesce in these fleshly pursuits ;” 
and Wieseler : ‘‘instead of your advancing onward to the goal, ye make the 
most shameful retrogression.”! But éxiredeiv and érire/Acioba: always dencte 
ending in the sense of completion, of accomplishing and bringing fully to 
a conclusion (conswmmare).? If, therefore, the word is taken as middle, it 
must be explained : ‘‘ After ye have begun (your Christian life) with the Spirit, 
de ye now bring (that which ye have begun) to completion with the flesh ?” * 
But the active to complete is always in the N. T. represented by éxureAeiv, not 
by éniveAeiofac in the middle (comp., on the contrary, 1 Pet. v. 9), however 
undoubted is the occurrence of the medial use among Greek authors.* 
Moreover, the rocaira éxdOere eixy which follows (see on ver. 4) makes the 
subject of éivedeicfe appear as suffering, and thereby indicates the word to 
be passive, as, following the Vulgate (consummamini), Chrysostom, and Theo- 
phylact, many of the older expositors have understood it,°—viz., so that the 
Judaistic operations, which the readers had experience of and allowed to be 
practised on themselves, are expressed by antiphrasis, and doubtless in refer- 
ence to their own opinion and that of their teachers, as their Christian com- 
pletion (réAevot roteiobe !).° But how cutting and putting to shame this irony 
is, is felt at once from the contradictory juxtaposition of carne perficimini, 
‘‘ve are made perfect in the flesh !” Nearest to our view (without, how- 
ever, bringing forward the zronical character of the words) comes that of 
Beza, who says that perficimini applies to the teaching of the pseudo-apostles, 
who ascribed ‘‘ Christo tantum initia, legi perfectionem justitiae,” ‘to Christ 
only the beginning, and to the law the perfection of righteousness.” 7 
The present denotes that the Galatians were just occupied in this ériredeicAa. 
Comp. i. 6. The emphatic viv (‘‘nune, cum magis magisque deberetis 
spirituales fieri relicta carne,” ‘‘now, when the flesh being left, ye should 
have become more and more spiritual,’ Bengel) should have prevented it 
from being taken as the Attic future (Studer, Usteri). 

Ver. 4. After Paul, by the viv capxi érire?cicbe, has reminded his readers 
of all that they had most foolishly submitted to at the hands of the false 
apostles, in order to be made, according to their own and their teachers’ 
fancy, finished Christians, he now discloses to them the uselessness of it in 
the exclamation (not interrogation), ‘‘ So much have ye suffered without profit !” 
What he means by rocaita éxdfere, is therefore everything with which the 


1 Comp. Hofmann. 
2 See especially Phil. i. 6, 6 evapEdmevos 
. emuTedcoer 5 1 Sam. iii. 12, apEowar Kat 

éemctedkecow : Zech. iv. 9; Luke xiii. 82 ; Rom. 
Xv. 28; 2 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 6, 11; Heb. viii. 5, 
ix. 6. Comp. Thucyd. iv. 90. 4, 00a jy vr0- 
Aoura éemiteAeoar: Xen, Anabd. iy. 3. 13. 

3 Comp. Holsten. 


4 Plat. Phil. p. 27. C; Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 83 
Polyb. i. 40. 16, ii. 58. 10, v. 108. 9. 

5 Some of them indeed translating it pas- 
sively, but in the interpretation (comp. 
Erasmus, Calvin, and others, also Bengel) 
not strictly maintaining the passive sense. 

® Comp. also Matthias, VOmel, Reithmayr. 

7 Comp. Semler. 


CHAP. III., 4. 10% 
false apostles in their Judaistic zeal had molested and burdened the 
Galatians,—the many exactions, in name of compliance with the law, which 
these had necessarily to undergo at the hands of their new teachers.’ Bengel 
refers it to the patient endurance of the apostle’s ministry, produced through 
the Holy Spirit ; but this view is not at all suggested by the context, and 
would not correspond to the sense of técyew (but rather of avéyeobar). All 
the expositors before Schomer (in Wolf) and Homberg,’? understand it 
(following Chrysostom and Augustine) of the sufferings and persecutions on 
account of Christianity ; so that Paul asks, ‘‘ Have ye suffered so much in 
vain ? Seeing, namely, that ye have fallen away from the faith and hence 
cannot attain to the glory which tribulation brings in its train” (2 Cor. iv. 
17 ; Rom. viii. 17). But, apart from the fact that no extraordinary suffer- 
ings on the part of the Galatians are either touched upon in the epistle (iv. 
29 is quite general in its character) or known to us otherwise, this interpre- 
tation is completely foreign to the connection. After Schomer and Hom- 
berg, others * explain it : ‘‘ So many benefits (by means of the Spirit) have ye ex- 
perienced in vain ?”* Certainly tacyo, something befalls me, is a vox media, 
“‘eolorless word” (hence Matthies even wishes to understand it of the 
agreeable and disagreeable together), which, according to the well-known 
Greek usage, as the passive side of the idea of roveiv, may be employed also 
of happy experiences ;*° but, as the latter use of the word always occurs 
with a qualitative addition either expressed (ci, yap, teprvdv, ayaba, 
dvjoima, or the like) or indicated beyond doubt by the immediate context, °® 
it is not to be found at all in the whole of the New Test., the LXX., 
or the Apocrypha (not even Esth. ix. 29). Thus the interpretation, 
even if rocavta could convey any such qualitative definition of the text, is 
without precedent in the usage of Scripture. Paul in particular, often as 
he speaks about the experiences of divine grace, never uses for this purpose 
rdovew, Which with him always denotes the experience of suffering. He 
would have written, as the correlative of the bestowal of grace, éAaBere or 
édéEaabe (2 Cor. vi. 1). Ewald’s suggestion of powerful and vehement move- 
ments of the Spirit is forced, and unwarranted by the text. The very word 
tocavra points to the suffering of evil, just as roAAd, waa roAAa rabeiv, With- 
out «axa or the like, is frequently so used in Greek authors. — ive kai eix7] 
A hint that the case might be still worse than was expressed in eixy : if 
indeed it is only in vain (and not even to the positive jeopardy of your Mes- 
sianic salvation) that ye have suffered.’ Chrysostom and his followers dis- 
cover a mitigation and encouragement to improvement in the words ei yap 


Meomp. 16) f.,1v. 10) v.25 8; vis 12; i. 4): 
2 Cor. xi. 20. 

2 As also Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Sem- 
ler, Michaelis, Morus, Riickert, Olshausen, 
Reithmayr, and others. 

SIncluding Schoettgen, Raphel, Kypke, 
Zachariae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, 
Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
Hofmann, Matthias, Sieffert. . 

4So also Fritzsche, Diss. I. in 2 Cor. p. 54, 


and Holsten. 

5 Xen. Anab. v. 5.9: ayadov pév Te macxXewv, 
kakoy be pndev. 

6 As Joseph. Anft. iii. 15.1: 00a mabovtes 
e€& avtov kal mynAtkwy evepyecimy weTadaBorTes, 

7On «cat, compare Hartung, Partikell. 1. 
p. 136; Baeuml. Partik. p. 150. So, in sub- 
stance, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Kypke, 
Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Matthies, 
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
Ewald, Wieseler, Matthias, and cthers. 


108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
BovanOeinzé ono avavipat kai avaxtgoacba Eavtodce, obk eixy, ‘‘if you would be 
willing to be recovered and restored, it would not be in vain,” Chrysostom, 
as also Ambrose, Luther,’ Erasmus, Calvin, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, 
Cornelius 4 Lapide, Estius, Zachariae, Morus, and others. In this case 
cat must be understood as really;* but the idea of improvement, where- 
by the supposed case of the eix7 would be cancelled, is not indicated 
by aught in the context. Even should the words be taken as merely 
leaving open the possibility, that matters had not actually already gone so far 
with the readers (Hofmann), Paul himself would have rendered his very 
earnest reproach rocaira éraé. eixy both problematical and ambiguous, and 
would thus have taken the whole pith out of it.—eiye] assuming, namely, 
that ye even only, etc., makes the condition more prominent, and serves to 
Paul fears that more may take place than that which 
was only expressed by ei«j. This, however, is conveyed by the context, and 
is independent of the yé, instead of which zép might have been used.’ Still 
more marked prominence would have been given to the condition by 
eitep ye xai.4 [See Note XLIIL., p. 159.] 

Ver. 5. After the logical parenthesis (vv. 3, 4), oby resumes*® what was 
said in ver. 2, but in an altered tense (the present), in order to annex the 
example of Abraham as a proof of justification by faith. —émvyopyyav and 
évepyov are not to be understood as imperfect participles ;° for, if referring to 
the reception of the Spirit for the jirst time corresponding to éAaBere in ver. 
2, Paul must have written ériyopyyhoac and évepyfoas. No, he denotes the 
éxcyopnyelv K.T.A. as still continuing among the Galatians; it has not yet 
ceased, although now, of course, in consequence of the active efforts of the 
Judaizers under which they had suffered, it could not but be less strong and 
general than previously ;* ‘‘nondum ceciderant, sed inclinabantur, ut ca- 
derent,” ‘‘they had not yet fallen, but were inclining towards a fall,” Au- 
gustine. — In éxcyopnyeiv the éxi is not insuper, ‘‘ besides,” but denotes the 
direction, as in the German ‘‘darreichen, zwkommen lassen.”* — kai évepy. | 
and —to make mention of a particular yapicwa — which, etc. — duvduerc] may 
be miracles (1 Cor. xii. 10) ;° or miraculous powers (1 Cor. xii. 28).’? The 
analogy of 1 Cor. xii. 6 (comp. Phil. ii. 13 ; Eph. ii. 2) favors the latter. 
— é épywv vouov, 4 & akong riot. | 8c. moet TowTo,'! OY éExryopnyel Luiv TO TvEdpa 
Kk. évepyel Suvaperc év iuiv; Is this his operation upon you caused by works of 
the law or by the knowledge of faith ? comes it in consequence of your pros- 
ecuting those works, or of such knowledge being communicated to you? by 


intensify the mere ei. 


1“ Objurgat quidem, sed ita ut semper 
oleum juxta infundat, ne eos ad desper- 
ationem adigat.... Non omnino abjeci 
spem de vobis,” ‘‘He chides indeed, but 
in such way as always to pour in oil at the 
same time, in order not to drive them to 
despair .. . Ihave not entirely cast away 
my hope of you.” 

2 Hartung, I. p. 182. 

3 See Baeuml. /.c. p. 64 f. 
v. 3; Eph. iii. 2. 

4 Plat. Treact. p. 187 D ; Herod. vi. 16. 


Comp. on 2 Cor. 


5 Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 22 f.; Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 719. 

6 Castalio, Bengel, Semler, and others. 

7 yOv capkt éemTedciode, Ver. 3. 

82 Cor. ix. 10; Col. ii. 19; 2 Pet. i. 5; 
comp. also Phil. i. 19. 

In which case év is among, Winer and 
others. 

10 In which case év is within you, Borger, 
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Wiese- 
ler, and others. 

11 Buttmann, newt. Cr. p. 326. 


CHAP ME 46.07. 109 
the former way of active merit, or by the latter way of the reception of 
divine preaching? As to ako? miorswc, here also not (with Hofmann) = 
mioti¢ akoyc, See On ver. 2. 

Ver. 6. The answer, obvious of itself, to the preceding question is: é 
axojce Tiotewe ; and to this, but not directly to that question itself,’ Paul 
subjoins—making use of the words well known to his readers, Gen. xy, 6, 
according to the LXX.—that great religious-historic argument for the right- 
eousness of faith, which is presented in the justification of the progenitor 
of the theocratic people. Secing that Paul has just specified the operation 
of the Spirit caused by the preached news of faith, as that which proves the 
justifying power of faith, he may with just logic continue : even as Abraham 
believed God (trusted His Messianic promise ; comp. on John viii. 56), and it 
(this faith) was counted to him as righteousness, that is, in the judgment of the 
gracious God was imputed to him as rectitude.? [See Note XLIV., p. 159 seq. | 
Neither, therefore, is a colon to be placed * after’Afp., nor‘ is ver. 6 to be 
considered as protasis and ver. 7 as apodosis, for ver. 7 is evidently inde- 
pendent, and it would be a very arbitrary course® to take ver. 6 as an 
anacoluthon.* For the reward of Abraham’s justifying faith according to 
Gen. ic., see Jas. ii, 22 f. ; 1 Macc. ii. 52 ; and Mechilta.’” 

Ver. 7. Know ye therefore (since Abraham’s faith was counted to him for 
righteousness) that those who are of faith, etc. — ywooxere is taken as indica- 
tive by Cyprian, ep. 63 ad Caccil., Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Erasmus, 
Beza, Menochius, Piscator, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Reithmayr, and 
others. The tone of the passage is more animated by taking it as imper- 
ative." — oi ix rior.| designates believers, according to this their specific pe- 
culiarity, under the point of view of origin. It is faith from which their 
spiritual state of life proceeds.® —oiro.] has the emphasis :'° these, and no 
others. The contrast here is usually supposed to be : not the bodily descend- 
ants of Abraham. But how foreign to the context is a comparison between 
the bodily and spiritual children of Abraham! The only interpretation in 
harmony with the context is : ee 
So also, correctly, Riickert and Wieseler. — vioi ’ASp.] children of Abraham 
in the true sense. For the true vioi can have no nature different from the 
essential nature of the father. 


“these, and not those who are é& épywv vdpov. 


1 As Hofmann holds, according to his 
wrong interpretation of axons miotews. 

2 Tt is self-evident from the words of the 
text, how improperly the idea of sanctifica- 
tion is here mixed up with justification by 
the Catholics (also Bisping and Reithmayr). 
We have here justification simply as an 
actus forensis, a forensic act of the divine 
judgment, and that proceeding from grace, 
Rom. iv. 2 ff. 

3 With Koppe. 

4 With Beza and Hilgenfeld. 

5 With Hilgenfeld. 

6 See, moreover, on Rom. iv. 3; Hoele- 
mann, de justitie ex fide ambabus in V. T. 
sedibus, Lips. 1867, p. 8 ff. 


7 Jalkut. Sim. I. f. 69.3, ‘‘hoc planum est, 
Abrahamum neque hune mundum neque 
futurum haereditate consequi potuisse, 
nisi per fidem, qua credidit,‘* It is plain that 
Abraham could have obtained by inheri- 
tance neither this world vor the future, un- 
less through the faith by which he be- 
lieved,”’ q. d. Gen. xv. 6. 

8 The Vulgate has in Lachmann’s text, 
cognoscite. So also Castalio, Calvin, and 
others, as well as most modern expositors. 

®Comp. Rom. ii. 8, iii. 26, iv. 14; John 
XViii. 37, et al. 

10 Comp. Rom. viii. 14, ix. 6. 

11 See vy. 8-10. 

12 Comp. John viii. 8, 89; Rom. iv. 11 f. 


110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

Vv. 8, 9. After having pointed out from the Scripture that none other 
than believers are sons of Abraham, Paul now shows further according to 
Scripture that none other than these have a share in Abraham’s blessing, that 
is, are justified. 

Ver. 8. Aé] marks the transition from the sonship of Abraham pertaining 
to believers to the participation in his blessing. — rpoidovca] personification.’ 
The Scripture foresaw and the Seripture announced beforehand, inasmuch 
as whatever God foresaw and announced beforehand—in reference, namely, 
to that which is at present taking place—formed an element of Scripture, 
and was expreseed in it.*—ék« riorewc] is the main point of the participial 
sentence : of faith, not of the works of the law as the causal condition on 
the side of man. — d:caioi] present, for the time foreseen (rpoidovca) was the 
Christian present. — ra ivy] the Gentiles (comp. ver. 14), so that the latter 
have not to subject themselves to the law in order to become righteous, — 
mpoevnyyedicato| pre-announced the glad tidings. po refers, as in xpoidovca, 
to the future realization in Christian times. This promise was a gospel be- 
fore the gospel. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Test., in 
the LXX., or the Apocrypha ; but it is found in Philo.*— ére évevaoyndqo. 
év col ravra Ta é0vy] Gen. xii. 3, quoted according to the LXX. with the rec- 
itative 671, but so that, instead of acai ai gvdai tie yc, TavTa Ta *vy is 
adopted from Gen. xviii. 18;* and this not accidentally, but because Paul is 
dealing with Gentile Christians, whom it was desired to subject to the law. 
Hence ® it is not to be explained © of all nations, both Jews and Gentiles.— 
The emphasis in this utterance of promise is to be laid, not on zayra (Schott), 
but on the prefixed évevAoyndjoovra. For if the Scripture had not foreseen 
that faith would justify the Gentiles, it would not have promised blessing in 
Abraham to all the Gentiles ; from which it follows (ver. 10) that it is be- 
lievers who receive this blessing, and not those of the law, on whom indeed 
the Scripture pronounces not blessing, but curse (ver. 10). The characteris- 
tic évevdoy. can only be meant to apply to those who are of faith, and not to 
those who are of the law. What it is that in Paul’s view is expressed by 
évevdoyeiobar, Gen. xii. 3, in its Messianic fulfilment, is evident from the 
preceding or: é« ristewe dixatoi Ta ESvy, namely, God’s gracious gift of justi- 
Jication (the opposite of the kardpa, vv. 10, 11), which, because it is promised 
as blessing, can only be shared by believers, and not by those of the law who 


are under cwrse.’?’ The correctness of this view is certainly confirmed by 


1 Comp. ver. 22; Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17; John 
Vii. 38. 

2 Comp. the frequent Ac€yeu » ypady ; like- 
wise Siphra, f£.186. 2: Quid vidit (TISN)) scrip- 
tura, ete., ‘‘ what did scripture see.” 

3 De opif. m. p.7 A, de nom. nut. p. 1069 
D; also Schol. Soph. Trach. 335. 

4 Comp. also xxii. 18. 

5 And see ver. 14. 

6 With Winer, Matthias, Schott, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, following earlier exposi- 
tors ; 

7 De Wette, who is followed by Wieseler, 


understands the dlessing to be ‘the whole 
salvation of the kingdom of God,’—an idea 
too comprehensive for the context. Bahr 
(in Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 920) erroneously 
concludes from ver. 14, that by the blessing 
is meant the reception of the Spirit. See on 
ver. 14. This reception, as well as the Mes- 
sianiec salvation generally,—or, ‘‘ the good 
which is intended for mankind,” as Hofmann 
puts it,—ensues as a consequence of the ev- 
Aoyia, as the Messianic awwAeca ensues as a 
consequence of the xardpa, if the latter, as in 
the case of those who adhere to the works 


_— wore is used in 


CHAP: Uhr, 0, 0: 


dealt 


ver. 14, where to the reception of the blessing there is annexed, as a further 
reception, that of the Holy Spirit, so that the bestowal of the Spirit is not 
included in the idea of the eidoyia, but this idea is limited in conformity 
with the context to the justification, with which the whole reception of sal- 


vation begins. 


[See Note XLY., p. 160.]— év ooiis not : per tuam posterita- 


tem, t.e., Christum, ‘‘ through your posterity, ¢.e., Christ,” ? by which inter- 
pretation the personal coi (and how much at variance with ver. 9 !) is en- 


tirely set aside, as if év 76 orépuarti cov (ver. 16) were used. 


But it is : in 


thee ; that is, in the fact that thow art blessed (art justified) is involved (as 
a consequence) the blessedness of all the Gentiles, in so far as all the Gen- 
tiles are to attain justification by faith, and it is in the blessing of Abraham, 
the father of all the faithful (Rom. iv.), that the connection between faith 


and justification is opened and instituted for all future time. 


licott. 


Comp. EI- 


On évevioyeicdat, to be blessed in the person of any one, a word which 


does not occur in Greek authors, comp. Acts li. 25, Ecclus. xliv. 21. 


Ver. 9. "Qo7e] The general result from vv. 7, 8. 


If, namely, believers are 


sons of Abraham (ver. 7), and if the Scripture, in its promise of blessing to 
Abraham, has had in view faith as the source of divine justification for the 
Gentiles, believers accordingly are those who are blessed with believing Abraham. 


its common acceptation of the actual consequence, and is there- 


fore not to be explained in the sense of oi7w¢ viv, to which Hofmann’s view 
comes. — oi éx rictewc] has the whole emphasis, as in ver. 7. — civ 76 rioTO 
"ABp.| Paul does not repeat év, but writes civ, because he looks from the 
present time of eiAoyotvra into the past, in which Abraham stands forth as 
the blessed one, with whom those who become blessed are now placed on a 


like footing. 


civ is not, however, equivalent to cadac, a view on behalf of 


which appeal ought not to be made to Rom. viii. 32 ;? but it expresses fellow- 
ship, for believers, inasmuch as they are blessed (justified), share with believ- 
ing Abraham the same divine benefit which began in his person and is ex- 
tended to believers as the vioi¢ homogeneous with him. The predicate mioré 
is added to ’A{p., in order to denote the similarity of the ethical character, 
which necessarily accompanies the similarity of the result. 

Ver. 10. Argumentum e contrario, ‘‘argument from the contrary,” for the 
correctness of the result exhibited in ver. 9.2 For how entirely different is the 


of the law, is not cancelled (ver. 10). The 
evAoyta, therefore, is not yet the blessing of 
Messianic salvation itself, the «Anpovoy.a, 
but, as Hunnius (in Calovius) aptly explains 
it, ‘* Benedici in hac promissione est libera- 
ri mal-dvictione legis aeternae et vicissim 
haeredem ..ribi justitiae et bonorum coeles- 
tium,” *‘ To be blessed, in this promise, is to 
be freed from the curse of the eternal law, 
and in turn to be enrolled an heir of right- 
eousness and heavenly blessings.’’ Grotius 
is much too indefinite : ‘‘ Summa bona adi- 
piscentur,” “‘ They will attain the highest 
blessings.”? Also Ewald’s paraphrase, ‘‘ the 
blessing of the true religion,” istoo general. 


Beza, Usteri, Riickert, take the right view ; 
comp. also MOller (on de Wette) and Reith- 
mayr. 

1 Jerome, Oecumenius, Menochius, Estius, 
Calovius, Rambach, Morus, Borger, Flatt, 
Schott ; comp. also Bengel. 

2 Koppe and others. 

3 The conclusion is based upon the dilem- 
ma: either from faith o7 from the law. 
Tertium non datur, ‘‘ there is no third alter- 
native.’’ This is no supposititious idea (as 
Hofmann objects), but a necessary logical 
assumption, such as exists in every argu- 
ment ¢€ contrario. 





112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


position of those who are workers of the law! These, as a whole, according 
to the Scripture, are under a curse ; so that it cannot be supposed that they 
should become blessed. The extension of the argumentative force of the yap 
to the whole series of propositions, vv. 10-14,’ so that ver. 10 would only 
form the introduction to the argument, is the less to be approved, because 
this ydp is followed by a second and subordinate yap, and then in ver. 11 
an argument entirely complete in itself is introduced by dé. Moreover, 
by the quotation of Scripture in ver. 10 that which it is intended to prove 
(cot «.7.A.) is proved completely and strikingly.? — dco: yap é& Epywv védyov 
eiciv] the opposite of the oi é« rictewc in ver. 7: for all who are of works of 
the law, that is, those whose characteristic moral condition is produced and 
regulated by observance of the law (comp. on Rom. ii. 8), the men of law, 
ol éy6uevoe Tov vouov, Oecumenius.* — The quotation is from Deut. xxvii. 26 
freely after the LXX. ; and the probative force of the passage in reference to 
boot. . . bd KaTdpay eici turns on the fact that no one is adequate, either 
quantitatively or qualitatively, to the éupuévecy év waor x.7.A. 5 Consequently 
all who are é& épywv vduov are subjected to the curse here ordained. He alone 
would not be so, who should really render the complete (év raov) and constant 
(éupéver) obedience to the law, by virtue of which he as a doer of the law 
would necessarily be pronounced righteous (Rom. ii. 13), and would have 
a claim to salvation as dgeiAnua (Rom. iv. 4) ; but see Rom. iii. 9-20, vii. 
7-25. —émixatdpatoc] sc. éoTt, V8, xatypayevoc, Matt. xxv. 41, that is, has 
incurred the divine épy7.4 The word does not occur in Greek authors, 
among whom xardparoc is frequently used. But comp. Wisd. iii. 13, xiv. 
8; Tob. xiii. 12 ; 4 Macc. ii. 19. The a7éAea, eternal death, the opposite 
of the (joera in ver. 11, ensues as the final destiny of the érixatdpatoc (comp. 
Matt. xxv. 41), the consummation and effect of the xatapa. — bc ov« éupéver] 
What is written in the book of the law is conceived as the normal range of 
action, which man steps beyond.® More frequently used by classical authors 
with the mere dative than with év.— ao] as well as the previous zac, is 
found in the Samaritan text and in the LXX., but not in the Hebrew. 
Jerome, however, groundlessly accuses the Jews of mutilating the text on 
purpose (to mitigate the severity of the expression). — roi roujoa: aita] design 
of the éupéver x.7.A. 

Ver. 11 f. Aé] carrying on the argument. After Paul in ver. 10 has proved 
the participation of believers in the blessing of Abraham by the argumentum 
econtrario, that those who are of the law are under curse, it is his object now 
—in order to complete the doctrinal explanation begun in ver. 6 on the basis 
of Scripture—to show, on the same basis, the only way of justification, and 
that (a) negatively: it is not by the way of the Jaw that man becomes right- 
eous (vy. 11, 12), and (0) positively: Christ has made us free from the curse 
of the law (ver. 13). Observe (in opposition to Wieseler’s objection) that in 


1 Holsten, Hofmann. 5 Comp. Acts xiv. 22; Heb. viii. 9; 2 Tim. 
2JIn opposition to Holsten, z. Hvang. d. iii. 14: Xen. Ages: 1. 11); ThucMive Wisse 
Paul. u. Petr. p. 290. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 844 C; Polyb. iii. 70. 4; 
3 Comp. 6 épyagdjuevos, Rom. iy. 4. Isocr. de Pace, p. 428 jfin.; Liban. IV. 271, 


4 Comp. Rom. iy. 15. Reiske ; Joseph. Anté. viii. 10. 3, et al. 


CHAP. THs Ly 113 
Stxatovtat Tapa T. Oe@, the being justified in spite of the curse, and consequently 
the becoming free from it, is clearly and necessarily implied by the context 
preceding (ver. 10) and following (ver. 13). — Vv. 11 and 12 contain a com- 
plete syllogism ; 6 dixatog éx riot. Cyoerac forming the major proposition, ver. 
12 the minor, and éy véuw obdeic Stxatoitac Tapa TO Oe the conclusion. The 
subtle objections of Hofmann are refuted not only by the combination 6 
dixatoc éx tictewc, but also by the necessary inner correlation of dccacoctvy and 
fw, which are put as reciprocal.— The first 67 is declarative, and the second 
causal ;: ‘‘but that through the law no one. . . , is evident, because,” etc. 
Homberg and Flatt take them conversely : ‘‘ But because through the law no 
one... , it is evident that,” etc. The circumstance that djA0v 67: must 
mean it is evident, that (Flatt),' is not to be adduced as favoring the latter 
view ; for in our interpretation also it has this meaning, only érz is made to 
precede.* Against it, on the other hand, we may urge, that ver. 12 would 
be quite superfluous and irrelevant to the argument, and also that 6 dixacog 
é riorewe Chocrat, as a well-known aphorism of Scripture, is far more fitly 
employed to prove than to be itself proved. Far better is the view of Ben- 
gel, who likewise is not inclined to separate djAov ore : ‘‘Quod attinet ad 
id ‘as to the fact’ (the former éz: thus being equivalent to ei¢ éxeivo, bru, 
2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10 ; John ii. 18, ix. 17), quod in lege nemo justificetur coram 
Deo, id sane certum est,” ‘‘that no one is justified in the law before 
God, it is doubtless true,” etc. The usual view is, however, more natural * 
and more emphatic. Hofmann‘ wishes to take vv. 11, 12 as protasis to vv. 
13, 14 ; according to his view, ér specifies the cause, and d720v (or d72o0vé6r0) 
only introduces the illustration of this cause. But we thus get a long par- 
enthetically involved period, differing from the whole context, in which 
Paul expresses himself only in short sentences without periodic complica- 
tion ; moreover, the well-known use of dyAovérs as namely *® does not occur 
elsewhere in the N. T., although the opportunities for its use were very fre- 
quent (1 Cor. xv. 27, 1 Tim. vi. 7, are wrongly adduced) ; further, it is @ 
priort very improbable that the two important quotations in vv. 11, 12 
should be destined merely for incidental illustration ;° and lastly, there would 
result an awkward thought, as if, namely, Christ had been moved to His 
work of redemption, in the death on the cross, by the reflection contained in 
vv. 11, 12.7 —év vdum] not : by observance of the law, which would be é& épywv 
vouov,* but : through the law, in so far, namely, as the law is an institution 
which does not cancel the curse so pronounced and procure justification ; 
for otherwise faith must have been its principle, which is not the case (see 
the sequel). The law is consequently, in principle, not the means by the use 


ay Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27. 

2 See Kiihner, II. p. 626. 

3 For if we take Bengel’s explanation, the 
énAov will not suit well the following words, 
because they form an utterance of Scripture. 
We should expect possibly yeypamrat, so that 
then the first 67. would have to be under. 
stood as: iva eidqre, ot, ‘that ye may see 
that” (Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 59 ff.; 


8 


Schaef. ad Dem. II. p. 71). 

4 In loc. and Schriftbew. I. p. 615 f. 

5 See especially Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. 
p. 106; Bast, Palaeogr. p. 804. 

6 Comp. Rom. i. 17. 

7 Comp., on the contrary, iv. 3-5; Rom. 
Willy 32) COM Varels 

§ Erasmus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and oth- 
ers, 


114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

of which aman can attain to justification.’ Xpcoréc in ver. 18 corresponds to 
the emphatically prefixed év véum (what by the law is not done, Christ has 
effected) ; therefore év is not to be understood ? as : in, in the condition of 
of Judaism, or in the sense of the rule (Wieseler), but as : through, by means 
of. — rapa TS OG] judice Deo, opposed to the judgment of men.* — 6 dixacoc 
éx rlotews Choera] an aphorism of Scripture well known to the readers, which 
therefore did not need any formula of quotation. The passage is from Hab. 
ii. 4, according to the LXX. (6 62 dixatog éx riot. ov Choerar, Or, according to 
A. : 6 68 dix. pov ée m. gw. ¢.), Where it is said: The righteous (P'S) shall 
through his fidelity (towards God) become partaker of (theocratic) life-blessed- 
ness. The apostle, glancing back from the Messianic fulfilment of this 
saying—which he had everywhere in view, and experienced most deeply in 
his own consciousness—to the Messianic destination of it, recognizes as 
its prophetic sense : ‘‘ He who is righteous through faith (in Christ) shall obtain 
(Messianic) life.” Comp. on Rom. i. 17. In so doing Paul, following the 
LXX., which very often renders 13128 by xiorec, had the more reason for 
retaining this word, because the faithful self-surrender to God (to His prom- 
ise and grace) is the fundamental essence of faith in Christ ; and he might 
join éx rictewc to 6 dixatoc, because the life é« ricrews presupposes no other 
righteousness than. that éx mictewc. Here also, asin Rom. l.c. (otherwise in 
Heb. x. 38), the words 6 dixawoc éx ristewe are to be connected,* and not é« 
riotewc Cyoetao :° for Paul desires to point out the cause of the righteousness, 
and not that of the life of the righteous, although this has the same cause ; 
and in ver. 12, 6 zoijcac ara stands in contrast not to 6 dixacog merely, but to 
6 dixatoc éx Tiotewc.” Paul, however, did not write 6 ék miotewe dixatog OF DikaLoc 
6 éx wiotewc, because this important saying was well known and sanctioned 
by usage in the order of the words given by the LXX.; so that he involun- 
tarily abstained from the freedom of dealing elsewhere manifested by him 
in quoting from Scripture. The grammatical correctness of the junction of 
éx riot. to dixatoc is evident from the fact that the phrase dicawvoGa é« rior. 
is used ; comp. ver. 8. 

Ver. 12. Minor proposition ; dé the syllogistic atgui. See on ver. 11. — 
oix éotiv éx Tiotewe, is not of faith, is not an institution which has faith as 
the principle of its nature and action. Comp. ver. 10. — a2’ 6 roijoag k.T.A.] 
but he who shall have done them (namely, the xpoorayuzara and xpiuara, ‘‘ stat- 
utes and judgments” of God, Lev. xviii. 5) shall live (shall have life in the 
Messiah’s kingdom) through them, so that they form, in this way of doing, 


5 Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Pareus, Bengel, 
Baumgarten, Zachariae, Michaelis, Semler, 
Morus, Griesbach, Knapp, Riickert, Winer, 


1 On this advvatov tod voxov (Rom. viii. 3), 
comp. Lipsius, Fechtfertigungsl. p. 68; Ne- 
ander. II. p. 658 ff.; Weiss, bib/. Theol. 


p. 286 f. 

2 With Riickert, de Wette, and others. 

8 Comp. Rom. ii. 13; Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 
492]. 

4D* E FG, Syr. Erp. It., have yéypanrrac 
yap before om, F G also omitting SyAov. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xy. 27; Rom. ix. 7; and besides 
Heng. in loc. 


Gramm. p. 129, Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, Hoe- 
lemann, and others. 

® So most of the oider expositors, follow- 
ing Jerome and Augustine; also Borger, 
Winer, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Wiese- 
ler, Ewald, Holsten, Hofmann, Matthias. 

7 Compare, besides, Hoelemann, /.c. p. 41 f. 


CHAP, IID. ; 13: slits) 
the channel of obtaining life. Thus in the express words of the law (Lev. 
xviii. 5), likewise presumed to be familiar to his readers, Paul introduces 
the nature of the law as contrasted with é« mictewc. Comp. Rom. x. 5. 
After aA’, yéypatrat is not (with Schott) to be supplied ;’ but, as the form 
with the apostrophe indicates, Paul has connected 4/2’ immediately with 
6 rojoac avzd, leaving it to the reader not only to explain for himself aira 
and év airoic from his acquaintance with the O. T. context of the saying re- 
ferred to, but also to complete for himself the connection from the first half 
of the verse : ‘‘The law, however, has not faith as its principle ; but the 
doer of the commandments—this is the axiom of the law—shall live by 
them.” * 

Ver. 13. Connection : ‘‘ Through the law no one becomes righteous (vv. 
11, 12); Christ has redeemed us from the curse.” * 
the contrast stronger.* Riickert ° reverts to ver. 10, supplying jéy in ver. 
10, and dé in ver. 13. This is incorrect, for Xpioroc finds its appropriate 
antithesis in the words immediately preceding ; and, as in general it is a 
mistake thus to supply yvév and dé, it is here the more absurd, because éco. in 
ver. 10 has expressly received in ydp its reference to what precedes it. 
Against Hofmann’s interpretation, that ver. 13 is apodosis to vv. 11, 12, see 
on ver. 11. —7uac] applies to the Jews ; for these were under the curse of 
the law ° mentioned in ver. 10, and by faith in Christ made themselves par- 
takers of the redemption from that curse accomplished by Him, as Paul had 
himself experienced. Others have understood it as the Jews and Gentiles.” 
But against this view it may be urged, that the Gentiles were not under the 
curse of the Mosaic law (Rom. ii. 12) ; that a reference to the natural law 
as well (Rom. ii. 14, 15) is quite foreign to the context ;° that the law, even 
if it had not been done away by Christ, would yet never have related to the 
Gentiles,*® because it was the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 
li. 14 f.) ; and lastly, that afterwards in ver. 14 eic ra é9vy is placed in con- 
trast to the yuac, and hence it must not be said, with Matthias, that it so 
far applies to the Gentiles also, since the latter as Christians could not be 
under obligation to the law,—which, besides, would amount to a very in- 


The asyndeton renders 


direct sort of ransom, entirely different from the sense in which it applied 
to the Jews. — ényépacev] Comp. iv. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23 ; Bp hre79:: 
empetaiial), Matt. xx. 28; Rev. v. 9; Diod. #ze. p. 530: 4; 1 Dim. 11, 6; 
Polyb. ili. 42. 2. Those who are under obligation to the law as the record 
of the direct will of God,” are subject to the divine curse expressed therein ; 


1 Comp. also Matthias, who understands 
even ove« €otiv as runs not. 

2 Comp. on Rom. xy. 3; 1 Cor. i. 31. 

3 See on ver. 11. 

4 Comp. Col. iii. 4. 

5 Comp. also Flatt, Koppe, Schott, Ols- 
hausen. 

6 Which is not to be turned into a subjec- 
tive condition, as Bihr (Stud. u. Krit. 1849, 
p. 922) wishes, who explains it as the state of 
spiritual death, in consequence of his erro- 


neous view of evAoyéa in ver. 8. 

7 Gomarus, Pareus, Estius, Flatt, Winer, 
Matthies. 

® Tn opposition to Flatt. 

° In opposition to Winer. 

10 For in the apostle’s view everywhere, 
and here also, the law is this, and ver. 19 is 
not at variance with its being so (in opposi- 
tion to Ritschl in @. Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, 
p. 523 f.). Comp. on Col. ii. 15. 


116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

but from the bond of this curse, from which they could not otherwise have 
escaped, Christ has redeemed them, and that by giving up for them His life 
upon the cross as a Aétpov, ‘‘ ransom,” paid to God the dator et vindex legis, 
‘‘giver and maintainer of the law,”—having by His mors satisfactoria, 
‘death for satisfaction,” suffered according to God’s gracious counsel in 
obedience to the same,' procured for them the forgiveness of sins,? so that 
the curse of the law which was to have come upon them no longer had any 
reference to them. This modus, ‘‘mode,” of the redemption is here ex- 
pressed thus : ‘‘ by His having become curse for us,” namely, by His crucifix- 
ion, in which He actually became the object of the divine dpy7. The empha- 
sis rests on the xatapa, which is therefore placed at the end and is immedi- 
ately to be vindicated by a quotation from Scripture. This abstract, used 
instead of the concrete, is purposely chosen to strengthen the conception, and 
probably indeed with reference to the DTN DMP, ‘‘aceursed of God,” 
Deut. xxi. 23.3 But xarapa is used without the article, because the object is 
to express that which Christ has become as regards the category of quality— 
He became curse, entered into the position, and into the de facto relation, of 
one visited with the divine wrath ; it being obvious from the context that it 
was in reality the divine curse stipulated in the law, the accomplishment of 
which He suffered in His death, as is moreover expressly attested in the - 
passage of Scripture that follows.4 The idea of xarapa as the curse ef God 
—obvious of itself to every reader—forbids us to explain away (with Hof- 
mann) the ‘‘becoming a curse” as signifying, not that God accomplished 
His curse on Christ, but that God decreed respecting Christ that He should 
suffer that which men did to Him as fulfilment of the curse of the Jaw, which 
was not incurred by, and did not apply to, Him. The exact real parallel, 
2 Cor. v. 21, ought to have prevented any such evasive interpretation. And 
if Paul had not meant the curse ef God, which Christ suffered ixép judv, — 
as no reader, especially after the passage of Scripture which follows, could 
understand anything else,—he would have been practising a deception. 
Christ made sin by God, and so suffering the divine curse—that is just the 
foolishness of the cross, which is wiser than men (1 Cor. i. 25). Comp., 
besides, Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 81, who, however, regards the 
contents of our passage and of 2 Cor. v. 21 under the point of view of the 
cancelling of sin (sin being viewed as an objective power), and thus comes 
into contact with Hofmann’s theory. — irép juov] That brép, as in all pas- 
sages in which the atoning death is spoken of, does not mean instead of,* 
see on Rom. v. 6. Comp. oni. 4. The satisfaction which Christ rendered, 
was rendered for our benefit ; that it was vicarious,* is implied in the cir- 





1 Rom. v. 19; Phil. ii. 8. tors; comp. also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. 


2 Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Tim. 
ii. 6; Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28. 

3 Comp. Thilo, ad Protev. Jac. 3, p. 181. 

4 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 321, d ; Kah- 
nis, Dogm. I. p. 518 f., IIT. p. 382; Delitzsch, 
z. Hebr. p. 714. 

5 So here, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Riick- 
ert, Reithmayr, following earlier exposi- 


p. 134 f.). 

8 As is expressly stated in Matt. xx. 28, 
1 Tim. ii. 6, by avr’. Comp. Thomasius, C17. 
Pers. u. Werk, III. 1, p. 88 ff.; Gess, in the 
Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. V1. 4, III. 4. The 
less satisfactory is it, therefore, with 
Schweizer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 425 
ff., to find that the essential import of 


CHAP, Ilt., 13: 117 
cumstances of the case itself, and not in the preposition. The divine curse 
of the law must have been realized by all, who did not fully satisfy the law 
to which they were bound (and this no one could do), being compelled to 
endure the execution of the divine 6py7, ‘‘ wrath,” on themselves ; but for 
their deliverance from the bond of this curse Christ intervened with His 
death, inasmuch as He died asan accursed one, and thereby, as by a purchase- 
price, dissolved that relation to the law which implied a curse.! This ef- 
fect depends certainly on the sinlessness of Christ (2 Cor. v. 21), without 
which His surrendered life could not have been a Airpor, ‘‘ransom” (Matt. 
xx. 28), and He Himself, by the shedding of His blood, could not have been 
a lAaoripiov, ‘‘ propitiation ” (Rom. ili. 25), because, with guilt of His own, 
He would have been amenable to the curse on His own account, and not 
through taking upon Him the guilt of others (John i. 29) ; but utterly aloof 
from and foreign to the N. T. is the idea which Hilgenfeld here suggests, 
that the curse of the law had lost its validity once for all, because it had 
for once shown itself as an wnrighteous curse. The death of Christ served 
precisely to show the righteousness of God, which has its expression in the 
curse of the law.* — iz yéyp. . . . EbAovis not an epexegesis to yevou. iz. 
nu. kat. (Matthias, who writes 6, tv), but is a parenthesis in which the yevd- 
fievocg katdpa, Which had just been said of Christ, is vindicated agreeably to 


Scripture, by Deut. xxi. 23, freely quoted from the LXX.3 


our passage only amounts to this, that the 
Mosaic law had been set aside on the ap- 
pearance of Christianity, and that this set- 
ting aside was decisively evinced by the 
death on the cross. See, on the other hand, 
Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1859, p. 226 
ff., and in his newt. Theol. p. 156 f. 

1 Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 28 ; Col. ii. 14. 

2 See on Rom. iii. 25. 

3 The LXX. has cexatynpapmevos vrd Ocov mas 
Kpewamevos emi EvAov. The vo Geo is also 
expressed in the Hebrew. Jerome accuses 
the Jews here also of intentional falsifica- 
tion of the text, alleging that in an anti- 
Christian interest they had inserted the 
name of God into the original text. Bihr, 
in the Séud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 928 ff., is of opin- 
ion that Paul purposely omitted tro Geod, 
so as not to represent Christ as cursed by 
God (with which Hofmann agrees); that He 
was called cursed only because, through 
His death, He appeared as cursed before all 
to whom the law was given. But this is 
incorrect, because the expression is not 
Paul’s, and because, so interpreted, the 
whole proof adduced would amount only 
to a semblance, and not to a reality. Christ 
has certainly averted from men the curse 
of God which was ordained in the law (ver. 
10), by the fact that He, as the bearer of 
the divine curse, died while hanging on the 
eross. Having thus actually become em- 


Accursed (vis- 


katapatos, He became the propitiatory sacri- 
fice for those who were subject to the law, 
whom He consequently redeemed from the 
definite divine curse of the law (ver. 10), so 
that on the part of God the actus forensis, 
“forensic act,” of justification now com- 
menced: and for this reason, although the 
crucified One was émxatapatos, Paul could 
elsewhere represent Him as oan cvwédias 
(Eph. vy. 2). Luther aptly remarks: ‘‘ Si vis 
negare eum esse peccatorem et maledictum, 
negato etiam passum, crucifixum et mortuum,” 
“Tf you want to deny that He isa sinner 
and cursed, deny also that He suffered, was 
crucified, and died.’ The cause of the 
non-adoption of vro @c0d cannot be that 
Paul, under the influence of a subordinate 
value assigned to the law as not directly 
given by God, had the passage imprinted 
on his mind without v7 @eod (Ritschl, /.c. 
p. 526), for he did not entertain any such es- 
timate of its inferior value. We must, in 
fact, simply abide by the explanation that 
he quoted the passage of Scriptur. from afree 
recollection (as is already shown by émtkara- 
parosand the addition of 0), and in doing 
so, having in view only the “cursed” as the 
point of the passage, left unnoticed the en- 
tirely obvious v7 ®cod. In a similar way, 
in ver. 11, in the quotation Hab. ii. 4, he 
does not adopt the mov of the LXX. 


118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


ited with the wrath of God) zs every one who (according to the LXX., in 
which the article is wanting, every one, if he) is hanged on a tree. 'The orig- 
inal historical sense of this passage applies to those malefactors who, in or- 
der to the aggravation of their punishment, were after their execution pub- 
licly hung up on a (probably cross-shaped) stake,’ but were not allowed to 
remain hanging over the night, lest such accursed ones should profane the 
holy land.?, Now, so far as Christ when put to death hung upon a stake,* 
the predicate éxckataparoc applies also to Him ; and this furnishes the script- 
ural proof of the preceding yevduevog Katapa. 

Ver. 14. Divine purpose in Christ’s redeeming us (the Jews) from the 
curse of the law ; inorder that the blessing promised to Abraham (justifica- 
tion ; see on ver. 8) might be imparted in Christ Jesus to the Gentiles (not : 
to all peoples, as Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius, following the earlier ex- 
positors, take 7a éJvy, in opposition to the context). So long, namely, as 
the curse of the law stood in force and consequently the Jews were still 
subject to this divine curse, the Gentiles could not be partakers of that 
blessing ; for, according to that promise made to Abraham, it was implied 
in the preference which in the divine plan of salvation was granted to the 
Jews (Rom. i. 17, xv. 8, 9, iii. 1, 2, ix. 1-5), that salvation should issue 
from them and pass over to the Gentiles (comp. Rom. xv. 27 ; John iv. 22, 
xi. 52). Hence, when Christ by His atoning death redeemed the Jews 
from the curse of the divine law, God, in thus arranging His salvation, 
must necessarily have had the design that the Gentiles, who are expressly 
named in the promise made to Abraham (ver. 8), should share in the prom- 
ised justification, and that not in some way through the Jaw, as if they 
were to be subjected to this, but in Christ Jesus, through whom in fact the 
Jews had been made free from the curse of the law. The opposite of this 
liberation of the Jews could not exist in God’s purpose in regard to the 
Gentiles. TRiickert takes a different view of the logical connection (as to 
which most expositors are silent), in the light of Eph. ii. 14 ff.: ‘‘So long 
as the law continued, an impenetrable wall of partition was set up between 
the Jewish and the Gentile world; . . . and just as long it was simply 
impossible that the blessing should pass over to the Gentiles.” But the 
context speaks not of the law itself as having been done away, but of the 
curse of the law, from which Jesus had redeemed the Jews ; so that the idea 
of a partition-wall, formed by the law itself standing between Jew and Gen- 
tile, is not presented to the reader. Usteri thus states the connection : 
‘“Christ by His vicarious death has redeemed us (Jews) from the curse of 
the law, in order that (justification henceforth being to be attained through 
faith) the Gentiles may become partakers in the blessings of Abraham, 
since now there is required for justification a condition possible for all,—namely, 
faith.” * But since the point of the possibility of the justification of the Gentiles 


1 Analogous to ourformer custom of fast- Wolf, p. 536; Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 460 f.; 
ening criminals on the wheel, in order to Bihr in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 924 f. 
aggravate the punishment. 3 Comp. Acts v. 30, x. 39; 1 Pet. ii. 24. 

2 Deut. xxi. 23; Num. xxv. 4; Josh. x. 26; 4 Comp. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and 
*2Sam. iv. 12. See Lund, Jiid. Heiligth. ed. | Theophylact. 


CHAP. III., 14. 119 

is not dealt with in the context, this latter expedient is quite as arbitrarily 
resorted to, as is Schott’s intermingling of the natural law, against the 

threatenings of which faith alone yields protection (Rom. il. 12 ff., ii. 9 ff.). 

—eic ra é3vy] might reach to the Gentiles (Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15), that is, be 
imparted to them (Rev. xvi. 2).’ Such was to be the course of the divine 
way of salvation, from Israel to the Gentiles. Observe, that Paul does not 
say xal cic r. @0vy, as if the Gentiles were merely an accessory. — 1) evAoyia Tov . 
ABp.| the blessing already spoken of, which was pre-announced to Abraham 
(ver. 8), the opposite of the xazdpa ; not therefore life (Hofmann), the 
opposite of which would be Sdvaroc, but justifieation—by which is meant 
the benefit itself (Eph. i. 3 ; Rom. xv. 29), and not the mere promise of it 
(Schott). —év Xpicr@ "Iycov] so that this reception of the blessing depends, 

and is founded, on Christ (on His redeeming death). The dvd ti¢ ricrewe 
which follows expresses the matter from the point of view of the subjective 
medium, whilst év Xpior@ presents the objective state of the case—the two 
elements corresponding to each other at the close of the two sentences of 
purpose. —iva tv éxayyediav x.7.2.] cannot be subordinated to the previous 
sentence of purpose (Riickert), for it contains no benefit specially accruing 
to the Gentiles.? It is parallel to the first sentence of purpose by way ot 
climax.’ After Paul had expressed the blessed aim which the redeeming 
death of Christ had in reference to the Gentiles,—namely, that they should 
become partakers of the eijoyia of Abraham,—he raises his glance still 
higher, and sees the reception also of the Holy Spirit (the consequence of 
justification) as an aim of that redeeming death ; but he cannot again ex- 
press himself in the third person, because, after the justification of the Jews 
had been spoken of in ver. 13 and the justification of the Gentiles in ver. 14 
(iva eic Ta Eryn . . . "Inoov), the statement now concerns the justified 
generally, Jews and Gentiles without distinction : hence the first person, 

AdBwpnev, is used, the subject of which must be the Christians, and not the 
Jewish Christians only.* This by no means accidental emergence of the first 
person, after ra £317 had been previously spoken of in the third, is incom- 
patible with our taking the reception of the Spirit as part of the evAoyia 

(Wieseler), or as essentially ¢dentical with it (Hofmann). —ryv érayyediav 
Tov Tvevuatoc| Tv éexayyeAiay AauBaverw Means to become partakers in the realiza- 
tion of the promise (Heb. x. 36 ; Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 4) ; but rod rvetiuarog 
may be either the genitive of the subject (that which is promised by the Spirit) 

or of the object (the promised Spirit). The latter interpretation (comp. Acts 
ii. 33 ; Eph. i. 13) is the usual and correct one.® For if (with Winer) 

we should explain it, ‘‘bona illa, quae a divino Spiritu promissa sunt,” the 

blessings which have been promised by the Divine Spirit”) (Luke xxiv. 


1 Comp. on 2 Cor. viii. 13 f. to the O. T. promise of the communication 


2 Paul would have written AaBwor, which 
Chrysostom actually read—evidently an al- 
teration arising from misunderstanding. 

3 Comp. Rom. vii. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 3; Eph. 
vi. 19 f. 

4 Beza, Bengel, Hofmann, and others. 

5 So that tv émayyedtav is to be referred 


of, the Holy Spirit (Joel iii.; ‘Acts ii. 16),—a 
promise well known to all the apostle’s 
readers. Hilgenfeld incorrectly holds that 
“the promise given to Abraham is directly 
designated as an émayyeAta tov Trvevpatos (a 
promise, the substance of which is the 
Tvevpa).”’ 


120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

49 ; Actsi. 4), then, in conformity with the context, this expression must 
refer back to ver. 8 ;' and to this the jirst person 2aBwuev would not be suit- 
able, as Paul referred that promise given to Abraham in the Scripture (by 
the Holy Spirit) to the Gentiles. And if ry éxayyediav tov rvebuarog Were 
essentially the same as the evAoyia rou ’Afp., it would be entirely devoid of 
the explanatory character of an epexegesis. — dvd 7. riot.] For faith is the 
causa apprehendens, ‘‘ apprehending cause,’ both of justification and of the 
reception of the Spirit ; comp. vv. 2-5, v. 5. 

Vy. 15-18. What Paul has previously said concerning justification, not 
of the law, but of faith, with reference to that promise given to Abraham 
(vv. 8-14), could only maintain its ground as true before the worshippers of 
the law, in the event of its being acknowledged that the covenant once 
entered into with Abraham through that promise was not deprived of 
validity by the subsequent institution of the law, or subjected to alteration 
through the entrance of the law. For if this covenant had been done away 
with or modified by the law, the whole proof previously adduced would 
come to nothing. Paul therefore now shows that this covenant had not been 
invalidated or altered through the Mosaic law. 

Ver. 15.’ ’AdeAdoc] Expressive of loving urgency, and conciliating with 
reference to the instruction which follows.* How entirely different was it 
in ver. 1! Now the tone of feeling is softened. — kata dvbpwrov Aéyw] not 
to be placed in a parenthesis,* points to what follows—to that which he is 
just about to say in proof of the immutability of a divine dcad jn, ‘‘ covenant.” 
The analogy to be adduced from a human legal relation is not intended to 
be excused, but is to be placed in the proper point of view ; for the apostle 
does not wish to adduce it from his higher standpoint as one enlightened 
by the Spirit, according to the measure of divinely-revealed wisdom, but 
he wishes thus to accommodate himself to the ordinary way among men (of 
adducing examples from common life), so as to be perfectly intelligible to 
his readers (not in order to put them to shame, as Calvin thinks).° — éyuwe] 
yet. The logical position would be before otdeic. A diadjxn, although human, 
no one yet cancels. Such a transposition of the bue¢ (which here intimatesa 
conclusion @ minor?) is not unfrequent in classical authors, and again occurs 
in the case of Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 7.° There is therefore all the less reason for 
writing it duac, in like manner,’ which would be unsuitable, since that which 
is to be illustrated by the comparison only follows (at ver. 17). Riickert® 
takes it in antithetical reference to cata avdp. Aéyw : ‘I desire to keep only 
to human relations ; nevertheless,” etc. This would be an illogical antith- 
esis. Others, contrary to linguistic usage, make it mean yet even,® or guin 


I rpotdovca  ypady k.T.A. mpoevnyyedioato 
7@ "ABp. «.T.A. 

2 As to vv. 15-22, see Hauck in Stud. wu. 
Arit. 1862, p. 512 ff.; Matthias, d. Abschn. d. 
Gal. Br. iii. 15-22, Cassel, 1866. As ts vv. 15- 
29, see Buhl, in the Luther. Zeitzschr. 1867, 
Din lth: 

3 Comp. Rom. x. 1. 

4 Erasmus, Calvin, and many others. 


5 Comp. avdpwretws and avdporivws (Dem. 
639. 24, 1122.2; Rom. vi. 19). See generally 
on Rom. iii.5; 1 Cor. ix.8; and van Hen- 
gel, Annot. p. 211 f. 

® See on this passage. 

7 Morus, Rosenmiiller, Jatho 

§ So also Olshausen and Windischmann. 

® Grotius, Zachariae, Matthies. 


CHAP. III., 15. 121 


imo,’ and the like. —xexvpwpévyr] ratified, made legally valid, Gen. xxiii. 20; 
4 Macc. vii. 9; Dem. \485. 13; Plat. Pol. x. p. 620 E ; Polyb. v. 49. 6; 
Andoc. de myst. § 84, p. 11 ; comp. on 2 Cor. ii. 8. — dvadjxnv] not testa- 
ment (Heb. ix. 16 f.), as the Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and many others, 
including Olshausen, render it, quite in opposition to the context ; nor, in 
general, voluntary ordainment, arrangement (Winer, Matthies, Usteri, 
Schott, Hofmann : ‘destination as to anything, which we apply for one’s 
benefit,” Holsten, following earlier expositors) ; but in the solemn biblical 
signification of M13, covenant (Jerome, Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, Semler, 
Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, Reithmayr, and 
others ; also Ewald : ‘‘ contract”), as in iv. 24 and all Pauline passages. The 
emphatic prefixing of av3pazov points to the majus, ‘‘ greater,” the diadjxn of 
God ; and God had entered into a covenant with Abraham, by giving him 
the promises (ver. 17).* The singular (av3pérov) is not opposed to this view; 
on the contrary, since avdpérov diadjxn is put as analogue of the dvadjcn of 
God (which God has established), there could, in accordance with this 
latter, be only one contracting party designated: a ratified covenant, 
which a man has established. The ratification, as likewise follows from the 
diadixn of God, is not to be considered as an act accomplished by a third 
party ; but the covenant is legally valid by the definitive and formal conclu- 
sion of the parties themselves who make the agreement with one another, — 
ovdeic ade_red 7 Exidvar. | Viz. no third party. Such an interference would indeed 
be possible in itself, and not inconsistent with the idea of a covenant (as 
Hofmann objects). But cases of this sort would be exceptional, and, in the 
general legal axiom expressed by Paul, might well be left unnoticed.? That 
ovdeic is not the same subject as avtpérov (Holsten’*), is evident both from 
the expression in itself, and from the application in ver. 17, where the i76 
zov Ocov corresponds to the avpérov and the (personified) véz0c, which comes 
in as a third person, to the oideic. —¥ éxidsardooera] or adds further stipula- 
tions thereto, which were not contained in the covenant. That the éri inthe 
word éridvataocera (not occurring elsewhere) denotes against (Schott), is 
inconsistent with the analogy of éridiatidyut, exidiaywookw, éxidiaxpive, and 
so forth ;* in that case dvridvatdcoerac musthave been used. Erasmus, Winer, 
Hauck, and others wish at least to define the nature of the additions 
referred to as coming into conflict with the will of the author of the d:adjxy 
or changing it ; but this is arbitrary. The words merely affirm : no one 
prescribes any addition thereto ; this is altogether against the general rule of 
law, let the additions be what they may.° 


i Wolf. tifies the subject in ovde’s with the founder 


2 Comp. Gen. xvii. 7 ; Ex. ii. 24; Ley. xxvi. 
42; Luke i. 72; Acts iii. 25; 2 Macc. i. 2; 
Ecclus. xliv. 20, 22. 

3 On adetety Siadyjx., to do away a cove- 
nant, irritum facere, comp. 1 Macc. xv. 27; 2 
Mace. xiii. 25; Polyb. xv. 1. 9, iii. 29. 2, xv. 
8. 9. 

4“ Yet in the sphere of the human no one 
eancels his voluntary disposition, which has 
become legally valid.’ Matthies also iden- 


of the dcadyjny. 

5 Comp. Joseph. Bell. ii. 2. 3, aévav rhs 
erdcadjKys Thy StadyKyy eivarKupiwtéepav, Antt, 
Xvii. 9. 4. ; 

6 Chrysostom aptly remarks: «y ToAma Tis 
avatpépat peta TadTA CATwY i) Mpogtetvar TL, 
ToUTO yap é€otiv: 7H emtdtatacoeTa, ‘NO one 
coming after these things ventures to re- 
fute or to add anything, for this is: 7, émdca- 
TaogeTat,”’ 


122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Ver. 16. This verse is usually considered as minor proposition to ver. 15, 
so that vv. 15-17 contain a complete syllogism, which is, however, inter- 
rupted by the exegetical gloss ov Aéyec x.7.2., and is then resumed by covro 
6 Aéyw in ver. 17.1. But against this view it may be urged, (1) that the 
minor proposition in ver. 16 must necessarily, in a logical point of view,—as 
corresponding to the emphatic 6u¢ avOparov in ver. 15,—bring into promi- 
nence the divine character of the promises, and must have been expressed in 
some such formi as Ozd¢ dé 7 ’ABp.;3 and (2) that the explanation as to «ai 76 
orépuate avtov, so carefully and emphatically brought in (not merely ‘‘allu- 
sive,” Hilgenfeld), would be here entirely aimless and irrelevant, because it 
would be devoid of all reference to and influence on the argument. The 
train of ideas is really as follows :?—After Paul has stated in ver. 15 that 
even a man’s legally valid covenant is not invalidated or furnished with ad- 
ditions by any one, he cannot immediately attach the conclusion intended 
to be deduced from this, viz., that a valid covenant of God is not annulled 
by the law coming afterwards ; but he must first adduce the circumstance 
which, in the case in question, has ‘an essential bearing on this proof,—that 
the promises under discussion were issued not to Abraham only, bué at the 
same time to his descendants also, that is, to Christ. From this essential cir- 
cumstance it is, in fact, clear that that covenant was not to be a mere tem- 
porary contract, simply made to last wp to the time of the law. Accordingly, 
the purport of vv. 15-17 is this : ‘‘ Even a man’s covenant legally completed 
remains uncancelled and without addition (ver. 15). But the circumstance 
which conditions and renders incontestable the conclusion to be thence de- 
duced is, that the promises were spoken not merely to Abraham, but also to 
his seed, by which, as is clear from the singular 76 orépyart, is meant Christ 
(ver. 16). And now—to complete my conclusion drawn from what I have 
said in vv. 15 and 16—what I mean is this : A covenant previously made 
with legal validity by God is not rendered invalid by the law, which came 
into existence so long afterwards” (ver. 17). —r6 68 ’ABp. éppéOyoay ai Exay- 
yeaiar k. TE orépuare abrov] The emphasis is laid on kai 7 oréppate avror, the 
point which is here brought into prominence as the further specific founda- 
tion of the proof to be adduced. This clement essential to the proof lies in 
the destination of Christ as the organ of fulfilment ; in the case of a promise 
which had been given not merely to the ancestor himself, but also to Christ, 
the fulfiller, it was not at all possible to conceive an abérnoic by the law.* 
The passage of the O. T. to which Paul refers in kai 7@ oxéppare adrow, is 
considered by most expositors, following Tertullian (de carne Christi, 22) 
and Chrysostom, to be Gen. xxii. 18: évevAoyyOjoovra év TH oTEppmaTicon 
xdvra ta éOvn tc ypc, ‘‘In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be bless- 
ed.” But, from the words ob Aéyeu' Kai toig orépuacw x.7.A. Which follow, 
it is evident that Paul was thinking of a passage in which kai 7o ov ép- 
waticov is expressly written. Hence (with Estius and Bengel, Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Buhl) the 


1 See Morus, Koppe, Riickert, Schott, de 3 Comp. also Holsten, 2. Hv. @. Paul. u. 
Wette, Hilgenfeld. Petr. p. 204. 


2 Comp. also Wieseler. 


CHAP: 111... 16; 123 
passages Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, are rather to be assumed as those referre 

to,—a view confirmed by the expression «Aypovouia in ver. 18.1 Comp. 
Rom. iv. 13. — éppédycav?| they were spoken, that is, given, as some min., 
Eusebius and Theophylact, actually read édd@ycav. The datives simply 
state to whom the promises were spoken, not: im reference to whom (so 
Matthias),—an interpretation which was the less likely to occur to the 
reader, well acquainted as he was with the fact that the promise was spo- 
ken directly to Abraham, who at the same time represented his oxépya. 
—ai éxayyehia] in the plural: for the promise in question was given on sev- 
eral occasions and under various modifications, even as regards the contents; 
and indeed Paul himself here refers to a place and form of promise differ- 
ent from that mentioned above in ver. 8. 
that Christ is meant; hence he adds the following gloss (Midrasch): ov 
Aéyev’ Kai Toic orépuaowy x.7.4., in Which the singular form of the expression is 
asserted by him to be significant, and the conclusion is thence drawn that 
only one descendant (not : only one class of descendants, namely the spirit- 
ual children of Abraham, as, following Augustine, Cameron and others, 
Olshausen and Tholuck, d. A. 7. im neuen T. p. 65 ff. ed..6, also Jatho, 
hold) is intended, namely Christ. That this inference is purely rabbinical,* 
and without objective force as a proof, is evident from the fact that in the 
original text I is written, and this, in every passage in the O. T. where it 


In kai 76 orépuare aitov he finds 


expresses the idea of progenies, ‘‘ progeny,” is used in the singular,* whether 
the posterity consists of many or of one only.® Also the later Hebrew and 
Chaldee usage of the plural form in the sense of progenies > does not depend, 
any more than the Greek use of orépuara,’ on the circumstance that, in con- 
tradistinction, the singular is to be understood dc é¢’ évéc.8 The classical 


1 The correct view is found even in Ori- 
gen, Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. iv. 4, Opp. IV. 
p. 532: ‘‘Ipse enim (apostolus) haee de 
Christo dicta esse interpretatur, cum dixit : 
*Scriptum est, tibi dabo terram hanc et sem- 
ini tuo. Non dixit : et seminibus, tanquam 
in multis, sed seminituo, tanquam in uno, 
qui est Christus,’” ‘“‘ For the apostle himself 
interprets these things as spoken of Christ, 
when he said : it has been written : ‘ To thee 
and to thy seed will I give this land.’ He 
said not: ‘and to seed,’ asin many, but as 
in one, who is Christ.’? Comp. also p. 618, 
and Homil. 9in Genes. Opp. II. p. 85; and 
earlier, Irenaeus, Hae. v. 32. 2; later, es- 
pecially Jerome. 

2 As to this form, which has preponder- 
ant attestation (Lachm. Tisch.), comp. on 
Rom. ix. 12; Kiihner, I. p. 810, ed. 2. 

3 Surenhusius, catadAa. p. 84f. ; Schoettgen, 
Hor. p. 736; Dopke, Hermeneut. I. p. 176 ff. 

4 In 1 Sam. viii. 15, DI yi are segetes ves- 
trae, ‘‘ your crops.” : E 

S'Gen. iv. 253; 1 Sam. i. 11; Targ: Ps. xviii. 
26, where Isaac is called Abraham’s 3/7}. 
In the so-called Protevangelium also, Gen. 


iii. 15, the LXX. translators have referred 
orépmua, “ seed,’’ to an individual (to a son) ; 
for they translate, ards cov typyoer Kedadny. 
But it does not thence follow that this sub- 
ject was the Messiah, to whom the "J51w, 
correctly understood by the laXexes but 
wrongly by the Vulgate (conteret, ‘‘ bruise’), 
isnot suitable. The Messianic reference of 
the passage lies in the enmity against the ser- 
pent here established as the expression of a 
moral idea, the final victorious issue of 
which was the subject-matter of the Mes- 
sianic hope, and was brought about through 
the work of the Messiah. Comp. Hengsten- 
berg, Christol. [. p. 26 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. IL. 
p. 160f.; also Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 466 f. 

6 See Geiger in the Zeitschr. d. morgeni. 
Geselisch. 1858, p. 307 ff. 

7 Soph. O. C. 606. 1277; O. R. 1246; Aesch. 
Eum. 909. 

8 Comp. 4 Mace. xviii. 1: & ray “ABpapyatwy 
oTEephatwy amoyovo. aides Iopandttar, met- 
derte TH vow ToVTe, ‘ children of Israel, de- 
scendants of the seeds of Abraham, obey 
this law.” 


124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

use of aivara is analogous (comp. on John i. 13). Moreover, the original 
sense of these promises, and also the 7@ orépyare of the LXX., undoubtedly 
apply to the posterity of Abraham generally: hence it is only in so far as 
Christ is the theocratic culmination, the goal and crown of this series of 
descendants, that the promises were spoken to Him ; but to discover this 
reference in the singular cat t@ orépuati cov Was a mere feat of the rabbini- 
cal subtlety, which was still retained by the apostle from his youthful cult- 
ure as a characteristic element of his national training, without detriment 
to the Holy Spirit which he had, and to the revelations which had been 
vouchsafed to him. Every attempt to show that Paul has not here allowed 
himself any rabbinical interpretation of this sort’ is incompatible with the 
language itself, and conflicts with the express 6¢ éotv Xpxoréc ; which clear- 
ly shows that we are not to understand ozepudtwr with émi rodA@v, nor orép- 
patog With ég’ évé¢ (Hofmann, Buhl), but that the contrast between many 
persons and one person is the point expressed. But the truth itself, which 
the gloss of the apostle is intended to serve, is entirely independent of this 
gloss, and rests upon the Messianic tenor of the promises in question, not on 
the singular 6 orépyatt. — ob Aéyer| se. [See Note XLVI., p. 160.] Oedc, which 
is derived from the historical reference of the previous é)pé@ycav, so well 
known to the reader.? — dc éxi roaddv] as referring to many individuals, in 
such a manner that He intends and desires to express a plurality of persons. 
On éri, upon, that is, in reference to, with the genitive along with verbs of 
speaking, see Heindorf, ad Plat. Charm. p. 62; Bernhardy, p. 248 ; Ast. 
Lex. Plat. I. p. 767. — b¢ éort Xpictéc] which orépua, denoting a single indi- 
vidual, is Christ. The feebly attested reading 6 is a mistaken grammatical 
alteration ; for how often does the gender of the relative correspond by at- 
traction to the predicative substantive.® Xpworéc is the personal Christ Jesus, 
not, as some, following Irenaeus * and Augustine,® have explained it: Christ 
and His church,® or the church alone.” Such a mystical sense of Xpicté¢ must 
necessarily have been suggested by the context (as in 1 Cor. xii. 12); here, 
however, the very contrast between zo/A0v and évéc is decidedly against it.® 
Ver. 29 also is against, and not in favor of, this explanation ; because the 
inference of this verse depends on the very fact that Christ Himself is the 
orépua Tov ’ABp. (see on ver. 29). The whole explanation is a very superflu- 
ous device, the mistaken ingenuity of which (especially in the case of Tho- 
luck and Hofmann) appears in striking contrast to the clear literal tenor of 
the passage.’ It is not, however, Christ in his pre-human existence, in so 


1See among recent expositors, particu- 
larly Philippi in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1855, 
p. 519 ff. : comp. also Hengstenberg, Christo. 
I. p. 50 f.; Tholuck, /.c., and Hofmann. 

2 Comp. Eph. iv. 8, v. 14. 

3 See Kiihner, IT. p. 505. 

4 Haer. v. 82. 2. 

5 Ad iii. 29, Opp. TV. p. 384. 

8 Beza, Gomarus, Crell, Drusius, Ham- 
mond, Locke, and others; also Tholuck, 
Olshausen, Philippi, 7.c., Hofmann. 

7 Calvin, Clericus, Bengel, Ernesti, Diéder- 


lein, Nésselt, and others. 

8 See also vv. 19, 22, 24, 27, 28. 

* Tholuck holds that in ver. 16 Paul de- 
sired to show that the promises could not 
possibly extend to ‘‘ the posterity of Abra- 
ham in every sense,” and that consequently 
the natural posterity was not included ; 
that the singular points rather to a definite 
posterity, namely the believing. The latter 
are taken along with Christ as an unity, 
and, partly as the spiritual successors of 
the patriarch, partly in their oneness with 


OHA Ps LUIS, 17: 125 
far as He according to the Spirit already bore sway in the patriarchs (1 Cor. 
x. 1 ff.), who is here referred to, because it is only as the Adyoc évoapkoc, ‘* the 
incarnate word,” that He can be the descendant of Abraham (Matt. i. 1; 
Rom. i. 3). Comp. ver. 19. 

Ver. 17. Result of vv. 15 and 16, emphatically introduced by roiro dé Aéya, 
but this which follows (see on 1 Cor. i. 12), L say as the conclusion drawn from 
what is adduced in vv. 15 and 16: A covenant which has been previously made 
valid (ratified) by God, the law . . . does not annul. What covenant is here 
intended, is well known from the connection, namely, the covenant made 
by God with Abraham, through His giving to him, and to his orépua in- 
cluded along with him, the promises in Gen. xii. 3, xviii. 18 (ver. 8), xiii. 
15, xvii. 8 (ver. 16). The kipwore (Comp. on ver. 15) is not any separate 
act following the institution of the covenant, but was implied in the very 
promises given : through them the covenant became valid. The zpo in 
mpoxexvp. 18 correlative with the subsequent wera, and therefore signifies : 
previously, ere the law existed. — 6 wera retTpaxdora k.7.A.] cannot be intended 
to denote a comparatively short time (Koppe), which is not suggested by 
the context ; but its purport is: The law, which came into existence 
so long a time after, cannot render invalid a covenant, which had been 
validly instituted so long previously by God and consequently had already 
subsisted so long. ‘‘Magnitudo intervalli auget promissionis auctoritatem,” 
“The greatness of the interval increases the authority of the promise,” 
Bengel. According to Hofmann, the statement of this length of time is in- 
tended to imply that the law was something new and different, which could 
not be held as an element forming part of the promise. But this was obvious 
of itself from the contrast between promise and law occupying the whole 
context, and, moreover, would not be dependent on a longer or shorter in- 
terval. With regard to the number 430, Paul gets it from Ex. xii. 40 (in 
Gen. xv. 13 and Acts vii. 6 the round number 400 is used) ; but in adopting 
it he does not take into account that this number specifies merely the dura- 
tion of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. Consequently the number here, 
taken by itself, contains a chronological inaccuracy ; but Paul follows the 
statement of the LXX., which differs from the original text—the text of the 
LXX. being well known to and current among his readers—without entering 


the great Scion proceeding from his family, 
they constitute the descendants of Abra- 
ham. But in this case Paul, instead of ws 
émt toAAwy, must at least have written ws 
émi mavtTwv; instead of as éf’ évds, ws emt 
Tov evos; and instead of 6s éore Xproros, he 
must have written 6 éorw 7 éxxAncia ovv 
Xpiorw. — According to Hofmann, in Joc. 
(mot quite the same in his Schriftbew. II. 1, 
p. 107 f.), Paul, following the analogy of 
Gen. iy. 25 and thinking in tots oméppacu of 
several posterities by the side of each other, 
lays stress on the oneness of Abraham’s pos- 
terity expressed in the singular, the expres- 
sion in the singular serving him only as the 
shortest means (?) for asserting a fact testi- 


fied to by Scripture generally ; but, on the 
other hand, he has, by means of estimating 
this nnit of posterity in the light of the his- 
tory of redemption, been able, and indeed 
obliged, to interpret 7@ omépyati gov as re- 
ferring to Christ, the promised Saviour, with- 
out thereby maintaining that this expression 
in the singular could signify only an individ- 
ual, and not a race of many members. But in 
this way everything which we are expected 
to read in the plain words is imported into 
them, and artificially imposed upon them, 
by the expositor. Besides, in Gen. iv. 25 
o7mépua erepov Means nothing more than an- 
other son, 


126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

further into this point of chronology, which was foreign to his aim. In Ex, 
xii. 40 the LXX. has 7 6é katoixnowe Tov vidv “lop. hv Kat@Knoav ev yh Aly. Kat 
év yy Xavadv, ‘‘ Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in 
the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan was” (the words x. é y. X. 
are wanting in the Hebrew), éry retpaxdéova tpiaxovra, ‘‘four hundred and 
thirty years.” This text of the LXX. was based upon a different reckon- 
ing of the time—a reckoning which is found in the Samaritan text and in 
Joseph. Antt. ii. 15. 3.1. The interval between God’s promise to Abraham 
and the migration of Jacob to Egypt—an interval omitted in the 430 years 
cannot indeed be exactly determined, but may be reckoned at about 200 
years ; so that, if Paul had wished to give on his own part a definition of 
the time, he would not have exceeded bounds with 600 years instead of 430. 
The attempts to bring the 430 years in our passage into agreement with the 
430 years in Ex. xii. 40 are frustrated by the unequivocal tenor of both pas- 
sages.? — yeyovec] is not said ad postponendam legem, ‘‘ for postponing the 
law” (see, on the contrary, John i. 17), as Bengel thinks (‘‘ non dicit data, 
quasi lex fuisset, antequam data sit,” ‘‘he does not say given, as though it had 
been law before it was given”) ; for every law only comes into existence as law 
with the act of legislation.—On dxvpoi, invalidates, overthrows, comp. Matt. 
xv. 6; Mark vii. 13 ; 3 Esr. vi. 82 ; Diod. Sic. xvi. 24; Dion. H. vi. 78; 
and dxvpov roveiv, in more frequent use among Greek authors. — ei¢ 70 karapy. 
zy éxayy.| Aim of the dxvpoi : in order to do away the promise (by which the 
d.abfxn Was completed), to render it ineffective and devoid of result. 
Comp. Rom. iv. 14. ‘‘Redditur autem inanis, si vis conferendae haereditatis 
ab ea ad legem transfertur,” ‘‘ But it is rendered ineffectual, if the power of 
conferring the inheritance be transferred from it to the law,” Bengel. 
Observe once more the personification of the law. 

Ver. 18. ‘‘I am right in denying, that through the law the dcafjxy passes 
out of force and the promise is to cease.” The proof depends on the anti- 
thetical relation between law and promise, whereby the working of the one 
excludes the like working of the other. For if the possession of the Messianic 
salvation proceeds from the law, which must have been the case if God’s cove- 
nant with Abraham had lost its validity by means of the law, then this pos- 
session comes no longer from promise,—a case which, although necessary on that 
supposition, cannot occur, as is evident from the precedent. of Abraham, to 
whom salvation was given by God through promise. The mode of conclu- 
sion adopted in Rom. iv. 14 is similar. — éx véjov] so that the law is the in- 
stitution which causes this result (in the way of following its command- 
ments). Comp. on év véum, ver. 11.— 7 KAnpovouia] the possession, m9, re- 
fers in the theocratic-historical sense of the O. T. to the land of Canaan and 











162: The terminus a quo is the birth of 
Jacob. Comp. Olshausen: Paul reckons 


1 See Tychsen, Hac. X. p. 148. 
2 #.g., Grotius: The time in Ex. xii. 40 is 


reckoned from Abraham’s journey to Egypt. 
Perizonius, Orig. Aeg. 20; and Schoettgen, 
Hor. p. 736. The 430 years do not begin 
until after the period of the promises, that 
is, after the time of the patriarchs, and of 
Jacob in particular. Bengel, Ordo temp. 


from Jacob and his journey into Egypt. In 
like manner Hofmann: The terminus @ quo 
is the time “‘at which the promise given to 
Abraham was at all repeated ;” also Hauck : 
“From Jacob, as far as the pure, genuine 
onépya ABp, reached.” 


CHAP TED. 19: 127 


its several portions (Deut. iv. 21; Josh. xiii. 23) ; but in its N. T. sense, 
the conception of the «Aypovouia is elevated to the idea of its Messianic fulfil- 
ment (Matt. v. 5), so that the kingdom of the Messiah and the whole of its 
fulness of salvation and glory are understood thereby (1 Cor. vi. 9 ; Gal. v. 
21; Eph. v. 5 ; Acts xx. 82, et al.).1 So also here ; and Paul uses this 
word (not 7 cwrnpia, % Cw, or the like) because he has previously (see on 
ver. 16) referred to passages in which the xAypovouia (that is, according to 
this Christian idealizing of the O. T. historical sense : the kingdom of the 
Messiah) is promised. —oixét.] The one relation, if it exists, cancels the 
other. Itis (in opposition to Koppe) the logical (not historical) no longer. 
Comp. Rom. vii. 17, xi. 6. —dv érayyehiac] by means of promise, so that in 
his case the possession of the Messianic salvation is the fulfilment (by way 
of grace) of a promise, and not the possible result (by way of reward) of 
rendering prescribed services, and the like, which fall under the idea of the 
vouoc. — Keyxaptorat| sc. tiv KAnpovouiay donavit (Vulgate), bestowed by way of 
gift (the contrast to dgei2nua, Rom. iv. 4, 16), namely, as a future possession 
to be realized at the time of the wapovoia (Matt. vili. 11). On yapitecba twi 71, 
cCompeamom. vill. 32: 1 Cor. ii. 125; Phil..i. 29, it: 9; Acts xxvii. 24; 
Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6. 22 ; Polyb. xvi. 24. 9. Without supplying anything, 
Schott and Matthias render : To Abraham God has, through promise, been 
gracious. Comp. Holsten : He has bestowed a favor on him. But the sup- 
plying of 77 KAnpovouiay harmonizes best with the immediate context and 
the logical relation of the two divisions of the verse, the second of which 
forms the propositio minor, and therefore, like the major, must speak of the 
kAnpovouia.? Caspari,* following classical usage, but not that of the N. T., 
has wrongly taken xeydpiora: in a passive sense, so that God is conceived as 
the inheritance. This is in opposition to the context, and also against the 
view of the N. T. generally, according to which the «/npovouia proceeds from 
God (Rom. viii. 17), and is not God Himself, but eternal life (ver. 21 ; Tit. 
ili. 7 ; Matt. xix. 29, e¢ al.), the kingdom of the Messiah (v. 21 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 
xv. 50 ; Jas. ii. 5), and its salvation (Rom. i. 16) and dominion (Rom. iv. 
tome Matt: v. 5 3:2 Tim. ii: 12). 

Ver. 19.4 After Paul has shown in vv. 15-18 that the law does not abol- 
ish the far earlier covenant of promise, he might very naturally be met by 
the inquiry, ‘‘ According to this view, then, what sort of end is left to 
be served by the law in connection with the history of salvation ?” Hence 
he himself raises this question and answers it. — ri odv 6 voyoc] se. éote : how 
does it stand therefore (if it is the case that the law does not abolish the cov- 
enant of promise) with the law? A general question, in which, to judge 
from the answer that follows, the apostle had in view the purpose for which 
God gave the law. On the neuter ri, with a nominative following, comp. 1 
Cor. iii. 5 (in the correct reading) : ti oby éotw ’AroA2c, ‘* What then is Apol- 
los ?” and see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 501 E; Bernhardy, p. 336 f. Follow- 


1 Comp. on Rom. iy. 13; Eph. i. 11. self-obvious, is not expressed. 
2 Ver. 18 is a syllogismus conditionalis, 3 In d. Strassh. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff. 
“conditional syllogism,” of the nature\of a 4On ver. 19, see Stdlting, Bettrdge z. 


dilemma, the conclusion of which, because Euegese d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 50 ff. 


128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

ing J. Cappellus, Schott (also Matthies, though undecidedly, Jatho and 
Wieseler) takes 7/ for dia ri ; very unnecessarily, however, and in opposition 
to the constant use of the ri odv so frequently recurring in Paul’s writings 
(Rom. iii. 1, iv., e¢ al.; comp. Gal. iv. 15). — tv xapaBdcewv yapw rpoceréby | 
for the sake of transgressions it was added ; that is, in order that the trans- 
gressions of the law might be brought out as real, it was, after the covenant 
of promise was already in existence, superadded to the latter (mapevo7Afev, 
Rom. v. 20). The law namely, because it gives occasion to the potency of 
sin in man to bring about in him all evil desire (Rom. vii. 5, 8), and never- 
theless is too weak as a counter-power to oppose this sinful development 
(Rom. viii. 3), is the divaycc rH¢ duaptiac (1 Cor. xv. 56 ; and see Rom. vii. 
7 ff.); but sin—which, although existing since Adam (Rom. v. 13), is yet 
increased by that provocation of the law—has only come to assume the defi- 
nite character of zapd(uore in virtue of the existence of the law and its rela- 
tion thereto (Rom. iv. 15). The same purpose of the law is expressed in 
Rom. v. 20, but without the stricter definition of sin as rapéBaciwe. Accord- 
ingly, tov tapaB. xapw is not (with Wetstein) to be rationalized to this 
effect : ‘‘Lex sine dubio eo consilio lata est, ut servaretur, iraxoye yapey ; 
vitio tamen hominum evenit, ut peccata multiplicarentur,” ‘‘ Without doubt 
the law was given to be kept, viz., for obedience ; by man’s fault, however, 
the result was that sins were multiplied.” This is in itself correct (comp. 
Rom. vii. 12), but is irrelevant here, where the point in question is the posi- 
tion of the law in connection with the divine plan of salvation, the final 
aim of which is redemption. The real idea of the apostle is, that the emer- 
gence of sins—namely, in the penal, wrath-deserving (Rom. iv. 15), moral 
form of transgressions—which the law brought about, was designed by God 
(who must indeed have foreseen this effect) when He gave the law, and de- 
signed in fact as a mediate end in reference to the future redemption ; for 
the evil was to become truly great, that it might nevertheless be outdone by 
grace (Rom. y. 20). The result, which the law, according to experience, 
has on the whole effected, and by which it has proved itself the divayec tHe 
duaptiac (comp. also 2 Cor. iii. 6), could not be otherwise than the aim of 
God.! Luther (1519) strikingly remarks: ‘‘Ut remissio propter salutem, 
ita praevaricatio propter remissionem, ita lex propter transgressionem,” ‘‘as 
forgiveness on account of salvation, so violation of duty on account of for- 
giveness, and the law on account of forgiveness.” Observe, further, the 
article before rapaZ., which summarily comprehends, as having really that 
character, the transgressions arising and existing since the giving of the 
law.?. Others? consider that by rév rapa. yxdpiv the recognition of sins is ex- 
pressed as the aim of the law.* But (1) this idea could not have been ex- 


1Comp. Ritschl, p. 74 f.; Baur, neutest. p. 297. 


Theol. p. 140 f.; Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hol- 
sten, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Matthias (who, 
however, assumes the intentional appear- 
ance of an ambiguity), Stdlting, and others ; 
also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 75; Lech- 
ler, apost. Zeit. p. 110. 

2 Comp. Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. 


3 Some unexegetically combine ‘he two ex- 
planations, as Bengel: ““ut agnoscerentur 
et invalerescerent,” ‘‘ that they might be 
acknowledged and gain strength.” 

4So Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, 
Caloyius, Wolf, Schoettgen, Michaelis, 
Windischmann, and others; also Winer 


CHAP. I1r., 19. 129 
pressed by the mere rév rapaf. ydpw ; for although yapw is not always 
exclusively used in its original sense, jor the sake of, in favor of, but may 
also be taken simply as on account of,’ still, in order to be intelligible, Paul 
must have written rijc¢ éxvyvdcews tov rapaBdceov yaprv as signifying : in 
order to bring sins to recognition as transgressions. And (2) the point of 
the recognition of sin was entirely foreign to this passage ; for in tov rapa. 
avapw Paul desires to call attention to the fact that the law, according to the 
divine plan, was intended to produce exactly the objective, actual (not 
merely the subjective) opposite of the dicavooiyy (comp. vv. 21, 22). On ac- 
count of this connection also the interpretation of many expositors, ‘‘ for re- 
pressing transgressions,” is wholly to be rejected, because opposed to the con- 
text.? This view is decidedly disposed of by the expression rapaBdcewr, since 
mapafaocecc aS such could only come into existence with the law (Rom. iv. 
15); previously there were sins, but no transgressions,—a view with which 
Rom. v. 14 does not conflict, because the matter in question there is the 
transgression of a quite definite, positive command of God. The two last 
interpretations are combined by Flatt and Schott, as also by Reiche, follow- 
ing older expositors,* 
in general, and here in fact involving an amalgamation of two erroneous views. 
[See Note XLVIL., p. 160. ] — xpoceré@y] it was added, is not inconsistent with 
what was said in ver. 15, oideic . . . éxidvatdocera, because in the latter gen- 
eral proposition under oide/c third persons are thought of. The law, more- 
over, was not given as é7dvafjxn (see on ver. 15), but as another institution, 
which, far from being a novella to the diafjxn, was only to be a temporary 
intermediate measure in the divine plan of salvation, to minister to the final 
fulfilment of the promise. See the sequel, and comp. Rom. v. 20, x. 4. — 
aypic ob £A0n 70 orépua «.7.2.| terminus ad quem, ‘‘ goal,” of the merely provis- 
ional duration of this added institute. But these words are neither to be 
connected, in disregard of their position, with d:arayeic,* nor to be placed in 
a parenthesis ; for the construction is not interrupted. As to aypic ov 226n, 
usque dum venerit, ‘‘until it should come,” comp. on Rom. xi. 25. Accord- 
ing to the general usage of the N. T.,° the subjunctive, and not the optative,® 
is used. Paul has not put av, because there was no idea in his mind of any 
circumstances which could have hindered the event.’ — 76 orépua © éxiyy. | 








a course inconsistent with hermeneutical principles 


(‘ut manifestam redderet atque ita argue- 
ret illam, quam Judaei peccando sibi con- 
trahebant, culpam,” ‘‘to render manifest 
and so to convict of that guilt which the 
Jews by sinning had contracted ”’). 

1 Ellendt, Lea. Soph. IL. p. 947, appropriate- 
ly remarks: ‘‘xaprv cum genitivo dictum: 
in gratiam alicuius, inde alicuius aut hom- 
inis aut rez causa significans, quamquam 
minime semper gratia adsignificatur, quae 
Ammonii doctrina est, p. 53.’ Comp. 
1 John iii. 12. 

2So Jerome, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Grotius, Zachariae, 
Semler, Morus, Koppe,Rosenmiiller, Paulus, 


9 


Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Baur, Ewald (‘‘in order 
to punish them more striclly’’) ; also Messner, 
Lehre ad. Ap. p. 222, and Hauck, comp. 
Buhl; several, such as Grotius and Riick- 
ert, think that the inclination to Egyptian 
idolatry is chiefly referred to. 

3 Comp. also Matthies. 

4 Hofmann. 

5 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 198. 

® Matthiae, p. 1158. 

7 See Stallbaum, ad Phaed. p. 62 C; Her- 
mann, de part. av, p. 110 ff.: Hartung, Parti- 
kell. II. p. 291 ff. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 26. 


130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 

that is, Christ, whose advent, according to ver. 16, necessarily brought with 
it the fulfilment of the promise. The dative, however, does not stand for 
eic bv,’ but just as, in ver. 16 : to whom the promise was made. — éxhyyedrat| 
not promiserat, ‘‘had promised,” * comp. Rom. iv. 21, Heb. xii. 26; but pro- 
missio facta est, ‘‘the promise was made” (2 Macc. iv. 27), because thus it is 
not requisite to supply Oedc, and the expression corresponds very naturally 
with éppéOjoav ai érayyediat in ver, 16. Hence also it is superfluous to supply 
7 KAnpovouia (Ewald). — diatayeic dv ayyédwv év y. weo.| the mode in which 6 
vouoc mpoceréOy, or the form of this act : having been ordained through angels, 
etc. On diatdooew vouov, comp. Hesiod, épy. 274. The simple rdaocew véuov 
is more frequently used, as in Plat. Legg. p. 863 D. It means to ordain a 
Jaw, that is, to issue it for obedience, not to arrange it for publication (Stélt- 
ing), so that the angels would be described here as the diaskeuastai, 
‘‘revisers,” of the law,—an idea which has no support anywhere, and would 
run counter to the view of the directly divine origin of the law (Ex. xxxi. 
18, xxxii. 16 ; Deut. ix. 10). As to the use of the aorist participle in the 
language of narration, see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774 ; Bernhardy, p. 383. 
The tradition that the divine promulgation of the law took place amidst the 
ministry of angels, is first found in the LXX., Deut. xxxiii. 2 (not in the 
original text) [See Note XLVIII., p. 160] ; then in Heb. ii. 2, Acts vii. 38, 
538, Joseph. Antt. xv. 5. 3, and in the Rabbins, and also in the Samaritan 
theology.’ Because the tradition itself and its antiquity are thus beyond 
doubt, and there is no warrant for supposing that Paul did not know it or 
was not likely to adopt it (as, indeed, he adopted other traditional teach- 
ings, 1 Cor. x. 4, 2 Cor. xii. 2), it is a mere mistaken evasion to explain 6.4 
as inter, ‘‘among,” or coram, ‘‘in presence of,” 4 which would have ultimately 
to be referred to the idea ‘‘ by the mediation of” (as 2 Tim. ii. 2). The same 
remark applies to the view which looks upon the ayyéAwv even as men, like 
Moses and Aaron ;° Chrysostom left it optional to understand it either 
of priests or of angels. As to the monstrous amplifications which this 
tradition of the agency of the angels underwent at the hands of the 
later Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth. I. p. 309 f. Paul 
does not look upon the angels as authors of the law,*—as is certain 
from the whole view taken in biblical history of the law generally 
as divine,” and here especially is all the more decidedly indicated by 
the use of the da (and not id), for every reader in fact conceived 
of the angels as ministering spirits of God,* who accompanied the Lord 
appearing in majesty ; and consequently no one could attach any other 
sense to dia than ‘‘ministerio angelorum,” ‘‘ by the ministry of angels,’ 
which is clear as the meaning in Heb, ii. 2 from dia rot xvpiov in ver. 





1 Winer, Usteri. 

2 Vulgate, Bengel, Flatt. Hofmann. 

3 Comp. on Acts vii. 53; Delitzsch, on 
Hebr. ii. 2. 

4 Calovius, Loesner, Morus. 

5 Zeger, and revived by Cassel, d. Mittler 
e. exeg. Versuch, 1855. 

6 As held by Schulthess, Voigtlander in 


Keil and Tzschirner’s Anal. IV. p. 1389 ff., 
and Huth, Commentat. Altenb. 1854. 

7 See the apostle’s own designation of the 
law as vounos cov, Rom. vii. 22, 25, and as 
ypahy, vers. 10, 13, iv. 21 f., ef al. 

8 Comp. LXX. Deut. xxxiii. 2: é€« de&ay 
avrov ayyedot met avtov, ‘‘ from his right hand 
the angels with him.” 


CHAP. TT.) J9) 131 


3.—év yerpi peciror' | 


For Moses received the tables of the law from God, 
and carried them down to the people. Thus in the legislation he was the 
middle person between the Giver of the law and its recipients ; with the tables 
in his hand, he was God’s cnvoy to Israel, acting between the two parties. 
On account of this historical circumstance (Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15), év yecpi 
is to be understood not merely as a vivid mode of designating the mediation 
(3), but quite literally. In the N. T. the designation of Moses as peoirne 
forms the basis of the expression in Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24 ; and on the 
subject itself, comp. Acts vii. 38. This designation does not occur in the 
O. T. or in the Apocrypha ; but by the Rabbins Moses is called mediator 
NOD, "PSS, also 5w.* The better known and the more celebrated Moses 
was as mediator of the law,* the more decidedly must we reject every in- 
terpretation in which the veoir7¢—not more precisely defined by Paul, but 
presumed to have its historical reference universally familiar —is not refer- 
red to Moses. This applies not only to the view of most of the Fathers,° 
who, following 1 Tim. ii. 5, Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24, take the Mediator 
to be Christ,° but also to Schmieder’s view,’ that an angel is intended—the 
angel of the law, who, according to Jewish theology, had the special duty of 
teaching Moses the law, Certainly the Rabbins speak of an angel of the 
law ;° but this part of their teaching cannot be shown to have existed in 
the time of the apostles, nor can it find a biblical basis in the passages quoted 
by Schmieder (Ex. xix. 19 f., xx. 18, xxxiii. 11; Num. xii. 5-8; Deut. v. 
4 f.; also Ex. xxxili. 18-23, xl. 35 ; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. xviii. 18 ; Acts 
vil. 53 ; Mal. ili. 1). See also, in opposition to Schmieder,’ especially Liicke 
in the Stud. u. Krit. p. 97 {. — The object for which Paul has added Siarayete 
. pecizov, is not to convey the impression of an inferior, subordinate position 
held by the law in comparison with that of the gospel or that of the promise, 
inasmuch as the former was ordained not directly by God, but through 
angels and a mediator.”” [See Note XLIX. , p. 161.] (Luther, Elsner, Wolf, 


lneoitys is a word that belongs to the 
later Greek (Polyb., Lucian, ¢ a/.). Comp. 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 121. It occurs in the 
LXX. only in Job ix. 33. 

2 Comp. Ex. xxxii. 15; Lev. xxvi. 46. 

8 See Schoettgen, Hor. p. 738 f.; Wet- 
stein, p. 224. Comp. Philo, de vita Mos. II. 
p. 678 f. A; and on the matter itself, Deut. 
vy. 5; also Joseph. Avd/é. iii. 5. 3. 

4 Comp. Aboth R. Nath. i. 1, ‘‘ Legem, 
quam Deus Israelitis dedit, non nisi per 
manus Mosis dedit,” ‘‘ the land which God 
gave to the Israelites only by the hands of 
Moses.” 

6 Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, 
Augustine, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact ; so also Beza, Lyra, Erasmus, Cal- 
vin, Pareus, Calovius, and others. 

®So also very recently Culmann, zw 
Verstdindn. der Worte Gal. iii. 20, Strassb. 
1864. 

7 Nova interpr. 


Gal. iii. 19, 20, Numburg. 


1826. 

5 He was called Jefifia; see Jalkut Rubeni, 
fal Over3 

* With whom Schneckenburger agrees. 
See on ver. 20. 

10 Luther, 1538: ‘“‘ Lex est servorwm vox, 
connate Domini,” ‘“The law is the 
word of servants; the gospel, that of the 
Lord.”” Hofmann: Paul gives his readers 
to understand that the event of the giving of 
the law was no fulfilment of the promise (see, 
however, on ver. 20). Bengel: God com- 
mitted the law to angels, ‘‘ quasi alienius 
quiddam et severius,” *‘as though more re- 
mote and severe.’’ Buhl confines himself to 
saying that Paul wished to represent the 
difference between the mode of revelation 
in the case of the law and that of the cove- 
nant of promise. But the question regard- 
ing the purpose of this representation as 
bearing on the apostle’s argument thus 
remains unanswered. According to Hilgen- 


132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

Estius, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Tychsen, Flatt, Riickert, Usteri, de Wette, 
Baur, Ewald, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Hauck, and others ; comp. also Olshau- 
sen, and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 77 ; Vogel in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1865, 
p- 530), but its object is to enable the reader to realize the glory of the law in 
the dignity and formal solemnity of its ordination.’ It may be decisively 
urged in favor of the latter view, (1) that, if the mention of the angels was in- 
tended to suggest a lower relation in comparison with a higher, this higher re- 
lation must have been distinctly expressed (as in Heb. ii. 2), or at least must 
have been quite definitely discoverable from the immediate context (by the 
addition of a uévov perhaps, or the like), Regarded in themselves, the ap- 
pearance of angels and the agency of angels (comp. also i. 8) are always 
conceived as something majestic and glorifying,* even in respect to Christ,* 
and especially in respect to the law,* the bestowal of which was one of the 
high divine distinctions of Israel.* Just as little can it be said (2) that év yezp? 
pecirov is a depreciatory statement, for in fact the gospel also is given év yerpi 
uecitov ; to which argument the objection cannot be made, that the Media- 
tor of the gospel, as the Son of God, is far more exalted. than the mediator 
of the law : for év yecpi wecirov does not state at all what kind of mediator it 
was who intervened in the promulgation of the law, but leaves the dignity 
or lowliness of his person entirely out of view, and asserts only that a medi- 
ator was employed in the giving of the law ; so that in respect of this rela- 
tion regarded by itself there was no qualitative difference between the law 
and the gospel : both were mediated, given through the hand of a mediator. 
By way of comparison and contrast with the gospel, éy yepi avfpoxov or some 
such expression must have been used, whereby the mediation of the law 
would be characterized as inferior to that of the gospel. Lastly, (8) it by no 
means formed a part of the plan and object of the apostle to depreciate the 
law as a less divine institution, —a course which, besides being inconsistent 
with his recognition of the law elsewhefe,® would have been even unwise in 
dealing with zealots for the law ; whereas it was in the highest degree ap- 
propriate to acknowledge the high dignity of the law as evinced in the maj- 
esty and solemn formality of its promulgation, and then to show that it had 
by nomeans cancelled the promises. Thus the glory of the law glorified the 
covenant of promise, while the apostle’s opponents could not find any antag- 
onism to that law. In opposition to these arguments, the appeal to 6 Oed¢, 
ver. 20,7 has the less weight, because in zpoceré0y and diarayeic (ver. 19) God 
in fact is obviously the acting subject, and the promise also was expressed 
passively by éxhyyeAra: (without Océc). According to Helsten, 2. Hvang. d. 
Paul. u. Petr, p. 299 ff., Paul intends to express ‘‘the pneumatic truth,” 





feld, Paul’s intention was to detach as far 
as possible the origin of the law from the 
supreme God; and in this respect also he 
‘was the precursor of Gnosticism. 

1 So Calvin and others, including Winer, 
Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Mat- 
thias ; comp. Weiss, id. Theol. p. 284. 

2Hence we must not say with Schmid, 
bibl. Theol. II. p. 280, that the intention was 


to intimate that the giving of the law was 
not ‘‘ the absolute normal act” of the divine 
economy. 

3 Matt. xxiv. 31, xxv. 31; Johni. 52; 1 Tim. 
iii. 16, ef al. 

4LXX. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Acts vii. 38, 53. 

5 Rom. ix. 4. 

6 Rom. vii. 12-25. 

7 Usteri, Schneckenburger, de Wette. 


CHAP ELE. 20; 21. 133 


that, in the purpose of God, the significance of the law in the economy of 
salvation was to be that of amediator, viz., between promise and fulfilment. 
But if this were so, how wonderfully would Paul have concealed his 
thoughts ! He must have said that this mediatorial position of the law er- 
hibited itself in the form of its bestowal ; for this in itself, and apart from 
any other intimation, could in no way be known to the reader, to whom 
angelic and mediatorial agency presented themselves only as historically 
familiar attributes of the majesty and divinity of the law. The law idtse/f 
would not be placed by these attributes in the category of the peoitnc. Nor 
is Stdlting’s view more worthy of acceptance, who, in dratay. dv ayyéhwr, de- 
tects the idea: ‘‘ in order that the Jews might obtain the blessing of Abraham” 
(Heb. i. 14), and explains éy yevpi pecirov to mean that the law served as an 
instrument to the mediator for reconciling discordant parties with one another 
(and these parties are alleged to have been the Jews and Gentiles). These 
two ideas, which are only ina very indirect way compatible with the scope 
of the Pauline teaching as to the relation of the law to the gospel, or with 
history itself, could not have been found out by the readers, especially after 
ver. 18, and after rév tapaBac. yapev, and would have needed a more precise 
explanation in what reference they were to be taken. In unison with the 
history of the giving of the law, which was familar to every reader, the two 
points could only be understood as reminiscences of the historical circum- 
stances in question ; and peciry¢ in particular could not be conceived as a 
reconciling mediator, but only in the sense conveyed in Acts vil. 38. 

Ver. 20 down to py yévorro, ver. 21. “ But from the fact that the law was ° 
ordained through a mediator, it must not at all be concluded that it is opposed to 
the promises of God.” The expression just used, éy yerpi ecitov, might pos- 
sibly be turned to the advantage of the law and to the prejudice of the 
promises, in this way, that it might be said : ‘‘ Since the idea of a mediator 
supposes not one subject, to whom his business relates, but more than one, 
who have to be mutually dealt with, and yet God (who gave the law through 
a mediator) is one, so that there could not be one God who gave the law and 
another who gave the promises (for there are not more Gods than one); it 
might possibly be concluded that, because the law was ordained by God in 
a different way from the promises,—namely, by the calling in of a mediator 
acting between the two parties,—the earlier divine mode of justification 
(that of faith) opened up in the promises was abolished by the law, and in- 
stead of it, another and opposite mode of justification (that of the works of 
the law) was opened up by God.” Paul conceives the possibility of this 
inference, and therefore brings it forward, not, however, as an objection on 
the part of opponents, but as his own reflection ; 


; hence he expresses the 
concluding inference, 6 obv véjoc K.7.A 


., in an interrogative form, to which 
he thereupon replies by the disclaimer, y7 yévoirro. The explanation of the 
words, which in themselves are simple enough, is accordingly as follows : 
“* But the mediator—not to leave unnoticed an inference which might possi- 
bly be drawn to the prejudice of the promises from the évy yecpi yecitov just 
said—but the mediator, that is, any mediator, does not belong to a single person, 
but intervenes between two or more ; God, on the other hand, is a single per- 


134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


son, and nota plurality. Zs it now—when these two propositions are applied 
in concreto to the law and the promises—is it now to be thence inferred that the 
law, which was given through a mediator, and in which therefore there took 
part more subjects than one, in point of fact two (namely, God and Israel), 
between whom the mediator had to deal, is opposed to the divine promises, in 
which the same one God, who in the case of the law acted through a medi- 
ator and so implied two parties, acted directly ? God forbid! From this 
point of difference in the divine bestowal of the law and the promises, by 
no means is any such conclusion to be arrived at to the prejudice of the lat- 
ter, as if now, through the law mediatorially given by the one God, another 
divine mode of justification were to be made valid.” In this view, ver. 20 
contains two loci communes, from the mutual relation of which in reference 
to the two conereta under discussion (the law and the promises) in ver, 21 a 
possible inference is supposed to be drawn, and proposed by way of ques- 
tion for a reply. The dé is in both cases adversative : the first introducing 
a supposed objection, and the second an incidental point belonging to this 
objection, the relation of which incidental point to the first proposition 
strengthens the doubt excited ; 6 wecit¢ denotes the mediator absolutely as 
genus (** quae multa sunt cunctis in unum colligendis,” Hermann, ad Iph. 
Aul. p. 15, pref.): évdc otk éotw is predicate, negativing the évdc eivaz as re- 
gards the mediator, with emphatic stress laid on the prefixed évé¢ (not on 
the oix, as Hofmann thinks), and évé¢ is masculine,’ without requiring any- 
thing to be supplied : ec éorvv is predicate, and cic, in conformity with the 
axiom of monotheism here expressed, is used quite in the same purely nwmer- 
ical sense as évé¢g previously. Lastly, in the interrogative inference, ver. 21, 
6 véuoc is used, as the close annexation by ody sufficiently indicates, in pre- 
cise correlation to 6 pecitne in ver. 20 (for the law was given through a medi- 
ator, ver. 19), and trav érayyedov tov Ocov to @ éxfyyeATa, ver. 19 ; but the 
emphasis in this question of ver. 21 is laid upon «ara, for Paul will not allow 
it to be inferred from the two propositions expressed in ver. 20 (7 yévoito), 
that the law stood in arelation to the promises which was antagonistic to them 
and opposed to their further validity as regards justification. —The numer- 
ous different interpretations of this passage—and it has had to undergo above 
250 of them—have specially multiplied in modern times : for the Fathers of 
the Church pass but lightly over the words which in themselves are clear, 
without taking into consideration their difficulties in relation to the general 
scope of the passage,—mostly applying the 6 dé peciryg évic ob éotev, taken 
correctly and generally, to Christ,? who is the Mediator between God and 


1 Not neuter, as Holsten takes it, although 
0 6€ @eos eis éotey Which follows can only 
indicate the masculine. Holsten, not with- 
standing all his subtle acuteness, errs also 
in making the law itself,in opposition to 
the tenor of the words, to be the heat7ns (see 
on ver. 19), and in explaining the predicate 
ets attached to o @eos in the sense of the i7- 
mutability of the divine will ; holding that 
the law stands, not in unity with the 


promise, but between the two component 
parts of the latter (the giving of the 
promise and its fulfilment), and that God’s 
one saving will reveals itself in the promise 
and its two parts. See, in opposition to 
Holsten, Hilgenfeld in his Zeétschr. 1860, 
p. 230 ff. 

2 Jerome, however, explains the passage 
as referring to the two natures of Christ: 
‘*manu mediatoris potentiam et virtutem 


CHAP, II., 20; 21. 135 
man, and partly casting side-glances at the opponents of Christ’s divinity ;? 
although a diversity of interpretation (some referring pecitn¢ to Moses, and 
others to Christ) is expressly mentioned by Oecumenius. Although no spe- 
cial dogmatic interest attached to the passage, nevertheless in the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries (see Poole’s Synopsis) the variety of inter- 
pretations was already such that almost every interpreter of importance 
(yet, as a rule, without polemical controversy, because the dogmatic ele- 
ment did not come into play) took a way of his own. It became, how- 
ever, still greater after the middle of the eighteenth century (especially after 
grammatico-historical exegesis gained ground, but with an abundant in- 
termixture of its philological aberrations), and is even now continually 
increasing. How often have the most mistaken fancies and the crudest 
conjectures sought to gain acceptance in connection with our passage, 
the explanation of which was regarded as a feat of exegetical skill !? It is 
enough that out of the multitude of various interpretations—omitting the 
criticism in detail of the earlier views down to Keil *“—we specify the more 


ejus debemus accipere, qui cum secun- 
dum: Deum unum sit ipse cum Patre (0 é¢é 
@eds, as God), secundum mediatoris officium 
(6 6€ recttys) alius ab eo intelligitur,”’ ‘‘ By 
the hand of a Mediator we ought to under- 
stand the power and virtue of Him who ac- 
cording to God is understood as one with 
the Father, but in His office of mediator 
is understood as other than Him” (evos ov« 
éotiv)! Theodoret understands 0 éd€ peortys 
definitely of Joses, who intervened be- 
tween God and the people (évos ov« éottv), 
but holds that 0 S€ @eds eis éorw affirms 
that if is one and the same God who 
first gaye the promises to Abraham, then 
gave the law, and now has shown the 
goal (ro mépas) of the promises. Mecirns is 
explained as referring to J/oses by Genna- 
dius in Oecumenius (p. 742 C); on the 
other hand, Chrysostom and Theophylact 
take as a basis the conclusion, wote kat 
6 Xptortos Sv0 Tway eater meaitys, Geov dydAady 
kal avtpuorwv, ** so that Christ is Mediator of 
two, manifestly of God and men” (Theo- 
phylact).—Among modern Catholic exposi- 
tors, Windischmann and Bisping have close- 
ly followed Jerome in the reference of the 
second half of the verse to the two natures 
of Christ. The meaning is supposed to 
amount to this, that the promise was direct- 
ly addressed from God to God (#.é.,to Christ), 
and the passage is thus a locus classicus in 
Savor of the divinity of Christ. Not so 
Reithmayr, who in substance follows the 
interpretation of Theodoret. 

1 See Chrysostom. 

2 For a general view of the mass of inter- 
pretations, the following works are of ser- 
vice :—Koppe, Hwe. VII. p. 128 ff. ed. 3: Bo- 


nitz, Plurimor. de l. Gal. iii. 20 sententiae ex- 
aminatae novaquée ejus interpr. tentata, Lips. 
1800; also his Spicileg. observatt. ad Gal. iii. 
20, Lips. 1802: Anton, Diss. l. Gad. iii. 20 cri- 
tice, historice, et exeg. tract. in Pott’s Sylloge, 
V. p. 141 ff. : Keil (seven programmes), in 
his Opuse. I. p. 211 ff.: Winer, #xc. III. : 
Schott, p. 455 ff.: Wieseler, and de Wette 
ed. Moller, tv doc. 

3 Luther, 1519: ‘‘Ex nomine mediatoris 
concludit, nos adeo esse peccatores, ut legis 
opera satis esse nequeant. Si, inquit, lege 
justi estis, jam mediatore non egetis, sed 
neque Deus, cum sit ipse unus, secum op- 
time conveniens. Inter duos ergo quaeri- 
tur mediator, inter Deum et hominem, ac si 
dicat ; impiissima sit ingratitudo si media- 
torem rejicitis, et Deo, qui unus est, remit- 
titis,’ ete., ‘‘ From the name of Mediator 
he concludes that we are sinners in such 
way as to be unable to fulfil the works of 
the law. If, said he, ye are just by the law, 
ye do not need now a Mediator, and God, 
since He is one, is not self-consistent. A Me- 
diator, therefore, is required between two, 
viz., between God and man, as though he 
were to say: Most godless would be your in- 
gratitude if you reject a mediator, and to 
God, who is one, you remit,’’ etc. Erasmus 
in his Paraphr., understanding Christ as re- 
ferred to (in the Annotat. he says nothing 
at all about the passage) : ‘‘ Atqui concilia- 
tor, et si intercedit, inter plures intercedat 
oportet; nemo enim secum ipse dissidet. 
Deus autem unus est, quocum dissidium 
erat humano generi. Proinde tertio quo- 
piam erat opus, qui naturae utriusque par- 
ticeps utramque inter sese reconciliaret 
Deum placans sua morte, et homines sua 


136 


THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


recent literature, and adduce the following : 1. Keil, who comes nearest to 
our view, explains thus (see Opuse. I. p. 365 ff.) : ‘‘ Meditatorem quidem non 
unius sed duarum certe partium esse, Deum autem, qui Abrahamo beneficii 


doctrina ad verum Dei cultum pelliciens,”’ 
“But the conciliator, who intercedes, must 
intercede among a number; for no one 
disagrees with himself. God, however, 
with whom there was disagreement as re- 
spected the human race, is one. Hence 
there was need of a third participant of 
both natures to reconcile both with one 
another, appeasing God by his death, and 
alluring men by his doctrine to the true 
worship of God.”’ Calvin also, explaining 
the passage of Christ, considers : ‘‘ diversi- 
tatem hic notari inter Judaeos et gentiles. 
Non unius ergo mediator est Christus, quia 
diversa est conditio eorum, quibuscum 
Deus, ipsius auspiciis, paciscitur, quod ad 
externam personam. YVerum P. inde aesti- 
mandum Dei foedus negat, quasi secum 
pugnet aut varium sit pro hominum diver- 
sitate,” ‘‘Here the diversity between Jews 
and Gentiles is noted. Christ, therefore, 
is not a mediator of one, because diverse 
isthe condition of those with whom God, 
by His tokens, makes a covenant as to 
the outward person. But Paul denies that 
God’s covenant is to be thence estimated 
as though it were inconsistent or various in 
accordance with the diversity of men.” 
Castalio gives the sense of the words cor- 
rectly : “‘Sequester autem internuntius est 
duorum, qui inter sese aliquid paciscuntur: 
atqui Deus unus est, non duo,” ‘‘ A media- 
tor is a messenger between two who make 
some covenant with one another: but God 
is one, not two ;” but then draws therefrom 
the strange inference: “‘itaque necesse est 
Mosen Dei et Israelitarum internuntium 
fuisse, nec enim potest Dei et Dei internun- 
tius fuisse, cum duo Dei non sint,”’ ‘‘ It was 
necessary, therefore, for Moses to be a 
mediator between God and the Israelites ; 
for he could not have been a mediator be- 
tween God and God, since there are not 
two gods; and from this again he infers 
that both parties had thus promised some- 
thing, God promising life and the Israelites 
obedience ; and lastly, with equal arbitrari- 
ness : “‘nune quoniam legi parere nequeunt, 
supplicio sunt obnoxii,”’ ‘‘ Since, now, they 
cannot obey the law, they are subject to 
punishment.’’ Grotius (comp. Beza): *‘ Non 
solet sequester se interponere inter eos, qui 
unum sunt (évds, neuter), i.e. bene conve- 
niunt; Deus sibi constat,” *‘ A mediator is 
not accustomed to interpose between those 
who are one (evos, neuter gender), 7.e., those 


who well agree. God is self-consistent ;’’ 
from which he arbitrarily infers: ‘‘ quare 
nisi homines se mutassent, nunquam opus 
fuisset mediatore neque tum neque nunc,” 
‘““ Wherefore, unless men had changed, there 
would never have been need of a mediator, 
whether then or now.’’? Comp. Schoettgen, 
who, however, assumes the first part of the 
verse to be an objection on the part of the 
Jews,and 0 dé @ebs cis or to be Paul’s reply. 
Wolf, although referring peotrov in ver. 19 
to Moses, yet in ver. 20 understands peoirns 
of Christ; ‘““Ille vero mediator (qui impri- 
mis hic respiciendus est) unius non est (sed 
duorum), quorum unus est Deus,” “But 
that mediator who must here be especially 
regarded is not of one, but of two, one of 
whom is God.” Clarke, who understands 
feotr, in ver. 19 as referring to -Christ: 
“ Quilibet vero »ecizys est duarum partium. 
Deus est una pars. Ergo quorum erit Chris- 
tus mediator nisi Dei et hominum?” ‘ But 
every mediator is of two parts. Godis one 
part. Of whom, therefore, will Christ be 
mediator, unless of God and men?” Ben- 
gel discovers the syllogism : Unus non utitur 
mediatore illo (i.e., quisquis est unus, isnon 
prius sine mediatore, deinde idem per me- 
diatorem agit); atqui Deus est unus (non 
est alius Deus ante legem, alius deinceps, 
sed unus idemque Deus); ergo mediator 
Sinaiticus non est Dei sed legis, Dei autem 
promissio,”’ ** One does not use that medi- 
ator (7.e., whoever is one, does not act first 
without a mediator, and then do the same 
through a mediator) ; but God is one (there 
is not one God before the law, and another 
after the law, but God is one and the 
same); the Sinaitic mediator, therefore, is 
not of God, but of the law, while the prom- 
ise is of God.” Wetstein: ‘‘Sicut quando 
arbitrum vel medium vel sequestrum dici- 
mus, intelligimus ad officium ejus pertinere, 
ut non uni tantum partium faveat, sed 
utrique sese aequum praebeat; ita etiam 
quando Deum dicimus, intelligimus non 
Judaorum solum, sed omnium hominum- 
patrem. Undestatim colligitur, Mosen, qui 
inter Judaeos solum et Deum medius fuit, 
non veri nominis medium fuisse, sed a 
bonitate Dei expectari debere alium, totius 
humani generis negotium gerentem, i.e. 
Christum,”’ ‘‘ As when we speak of an ar- 
biter or medium or mediator, we under- 
stand that it pertains to his office to 
favor not only one of the parties, but to 


CHAP. III., 20, 21. 137 
aliquid promiserit, unum modo fuisse ; hineque apostolum id a lectoribus suis 
colligi voluisse, in lege ista Mos. pactum mutuum Deum inter atque populum 
Tsraelit. mediatoris opera intercedente initum fuisse, contra vero in promissione 
rem ab uniws tantum (Dei se., qui solus eam dederit) voluntate pendentem trans- 
actam, hineque legi isti nihil plane cum hae rei fuisse, adeoque nec potuisse ew 
novam illius promissionis implendae conditionem constitui, eoque ipso promis- 
sionem hane omnino tolli,” ‘‘That a mediator indeed is not of one, but 
certainly of two parties, but that God, who had promised some benefit to 
Abraham, was only one ; hence that the apostle wished it to be inferred by 
his readers that in the law of Moses a mutual agreement had been made be- 
tween God and the Israelitish people by the intervention of a mediator ; 
but, on the other hand, that what is comprised in the promise is dependent 
upon the will of only one (viz., of God, who alone has given it), and hence 
that the law and the contents of the promise are entirely different, and, ac- 
cordingly the new condition of the fulfilment of this promise, could not be 
fixed, and by this very means the promise be altogether withdrawn.” But 
(a) to take the second half of the verse not generally, like the first, but his- 
torically, as if 7v was written, is an arbitrary deviation from the parallelism ; 
and (0) the conclusion professedly to be drawn by the reader, hincque legi isti 
nihil, ‘‘hence that law,” etc., is quite without warrant, for Paul himse’f puts 
as a question in ver. 21 the inference which he conceives may be possibly 


drawn from ver. 20. 


show himself just to both; so also when 
we speak of God, we understand the Father 
not alone of the Jews, but of all men. 
From this the inference is immediate that 
Moses, who was mediator between the 
Jews only and God, was not one of true 
name, but that from the goodness of God 
another ought to be expected to act for 
the entire human race, i.e., Christ.’’ Mi- 
chaelis (following Locke): ‘‘ But this law 
cannot, in respect to the Gentiles, alter any- 
thing in the former covenant of God, For 
one of the parties who had a share in this 
covenant, namely, the Gentiles, had not 
empowered Moses as a mediator and knew 
nothing of him; but God Himself is only 
one party, and cannot alter His covenant 
through a mediator appointed on one side 
only.”’ Nosselt (Hvercitatt. ad s. s. interpr. 
p. 143 ff.) and Rosenmiiller: ‘‘ lie autem 
(Moses nempe) mediator illius unius (prolis 
Abrahamieae, the Christians /) non est, Deus 
autem est unus (communis omnium) Devs.” 
“ But he” (viz. Moses) ‘‘ is not the mediator 
of that one”’ (viz., the offspring of Abraham) 
“but God is one’ (i.e. common to all).” 
Morus, interpreting it as a syllogism with 
an interrogative major: ‘* Hic vero (Moses) 
nonne est mediator ejus, qui immutabilis est ? 
Subsumtio: aiqui vero Deus est immutadilis. 
Conclusio; num ergo lex adversari potest, 


2. Schleiermacher’s explanation is essentially sim- 


ete. ? ‘““But is not this one” (Moses) ‘‘ the 
mediator of him who is immutable? Minor 
premise: But God is immutable. Conclu- 
sion: Can the law then be against,” ete. 
Gabler (Prolus. ad Gal. iii. 20, 1787) has the 
same alteration in the sense of eis: ‘‘ He 
(Moses) was nol, however, a mediator of some- 
thing immutable,” ete. Koppe: “Jam qui- 
dem non vouw Mosis tantum suus est weoitns 
(plures fuerunt, imprimisque o pecityns THs 
katy, dcaOyxns Jesus) sed unus tamen idemque 
Deus est, qui misit omnes, is adeo debet sibi 
constare nec potest secum ipse pugnare,” ‘It 
is true indeed that by the law of Moses he is 
not alone its mediator (there were a num- 
ber, and especially Jesus, the Mediator of 
the new covenant), but, nevertheless, He 
is one and the same God, who sent all, 
and therefore He ought to be self-consis- 
tent, and cannot conflict with Himself.” 
So also, in substance, Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius: é€vés means for one matter; and the 
sense is, ‘‘that the law has been one of 
the many divine institutions, but as such 
it must stand in connection with the general 
plan of the divine government.’’—Some of 
these interpretations condemn themselves, 
and others find their refutation in our ex- 
amination of the more modern interpreta- 
tions after Keil. 


138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

ilar (in Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 186 ff.) : ‘‘ The mediator of an agreement does not 
exist where there is only one person, but always presupposes two persons ; these 
were God and the Jewish nation. But God is One in reference to His promises ; 
that is, God therein acts quite freely, unconditionally, independently, and for 
Himself alone, as One numerically, because it is no agreement between two, but 
ITis free gift (yapic). Does the law therefore conflict, etc.?”* But in this 
view (a) the application of ver. 20 to the conereta, ‘‘ concretes,” of the law 
and the promises, which is in fact not made until ver. 21, is imported into 
and anticipated in ver. 20. Moreover, (6) cic imperceptibly changes from 
its numerical sense into the idea of aloneness and independence ; and (ce) 
the idea of free grace is arbitrarily introduced, and is not expressed by Paul. 
Nearest to this interpretation of Schleiermacher and Usteri comes Hilgenfeld, 
whose interpretation,’ accompanied essentially by the same difficulties, ulti- 
mately amounts to the non-Pauline idea, that the position of God as a party 
in regard to the law is not in harmony with the divine unity (that is, with 
the divine monarchy). Comp. also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 77, accord- 
ing to whom Paul negatively ‘‘strikes the law to the ground as incompati- 
ble with the sole agency of God.” But how could Paul desire to strike to 
the ground the law, which to him was dyioc, ayabéc, ‘holy, good,” and 
mvevuarixoc, ‘* spiritual” (Rom. vii. 12, 14) ? No, all he desires to show is, that, 
notwithstanding the diversity of its divine bestowal from the mode of giving 
the promise, it is not opposed to the promise. 38. Winer: ‘‘ Non potest 
peaitne cogitari aut fingi, qui sit évdc, unius h. e. unius partis: 6 dé O&d¢ 
ele gor, Deus et unus, una (altera) tantummodo pars ; ita quaenam est altera? 
gens Israel. Jam si hoc, sponte efficitur, legem Mos. pertinere etiam ad Judaeos, 
hosque legi isti observandae adstrictos fuisse,” ‘‘ A mediator cannot be con- 
ceived of or imagined who is of one, i.e., of one part ; ‘ but God is one,’ one 
(other) part only. What then is the other? The Israelitish nation. If 
now this is so, it spontaneously results that the law of Moses pertains also to 
the Jews, and they are bound to observe this law.”’* Thus ver. 20 contains 
only a parenthetical idea, Paul having in view to re-establish the dignity of 


1In essential points, Usteri (ommentar, 
p. 121; comp. with Beilage, p. 239) agrees 
with Schleiermacher in his explanation. 
Moreover, the substance of Schleier- 
macher’s interpretation is already to be 
found in Zachariae, who paraphrases as 
follows: “A mediator presupposes two 
parties who make some promise to each 
other, inasmuch as a promise made on one 
side without a counter promise does not 
need any mediation between two. But in 
the case of Abraham God alone promises, 
who grants him a promise out of free 
grace.” 

2In his Commentary. We takes another 
view in his Zeétschr. 1860, p. 2386 ff.: ‘ Paul 
wished to express that the covenant of the 
law, being ordained through angels and a 


mediator, and consequently through a 
plurality, shows itself thereby to be entirely 
different from the covenant of promise 
which was given by the divine unity, and 
consequently cannot cancel the latter.” 
But this cancelling might certainly have 
been inferred from the very difference ; 
besides, the plurality, which is supposed to 
be implied in évds ov« éeotiv, would have 
nothing at all to do with the angels, but 
would necessarily refer only to the medi- 
ator, who has to mediate between two—in 
this case, between God and the Israelites. 
3JIn the explanation of the words Kern 
(in the Z%ib. Zeitschr. 1830, 3) agrees with 
Winer, only he does not insert tantummodo, 
* only,” in the second clause. He looks 
upon the words as an opponent’s objection, 


CHARS Ti, 20 veils 


the law, which appeared weakened by rév rapa. yap rpoceréfy + Lex Mos. 
data fuit peccatorum gratia ; propterea vero non est, quod quis eam tanquam ista 
émayyeria longe inferiorem contemnat; data e nim et ipsa est auctoritate 
divina, ‘‘ The law of Moses was given on account of sins ; but from this the 
inference is not just that one may despise it as far inferior to the promise ; 
for it was given by divine authority.”—d.aray. dc’ ayyéawv— gentique 
Hebr. tanquam agendi norma proposita év yetpi pecit. O¢ ovK ~oTLv 
évéc, ‘‘ Asa noun of actionit was set forth to the Hebrew nation.” It can- 
not be urged against Winer, that Paul must necessarily have written 6 eic.' 
But (a) in the logically exact chain of argument there is no indication at all 
that ver. 20 is to be taken as a parenthesis. (b) Since 6 peaity¢ is subject, 6 
Oed6c, which likewise is placed at the beginning of the sentence, may not be 
arbitrarily understood as predicate. (c) It must have been more precisely 
indicated by Paul, if it were intended that the first éoriv should be under- 
stood as the copula of a general judgment, and the second as historical 
(appears in the giving of the law); for every reader, if he had understood the 
first half of the verse as a general judgment, would naturally understand 


the second in like manner. 


and in 6 6€ @eds eis eotv he finds the idea 
intimated, that God in consequence took it 
upon Himself to bless those who obey the 
law ; whence the question follows: Does 
therefore the law, by which God has bound 
Himself to make blessed on account of 
works, conflict with the promises of God? 
But against this view it may be urged that 
there is absolutely nothing to indicate ver. 
20as the language of an opponent ; further, 
that the points brought forward against 
Winer, under (0), (c), and (@), equally apply 
here; and lastly, that the idea found in o dé 
@eds eis eoTty is not suggested by the con- 
text, but arbitrarily introduced. Baur also, 
Paulus, Il. p. 215 f. ed. 2 (comp. his neutest. 
Theol. p. 157), agrees with Winer in his con- 
ception of the words: the mediator belongs 
not to one, but to two parties, but God is 
only the one of the two parties. By this 
' Paul is supposed to intimate, that the law 
has a merely subordinate significance, just 
as that of the mediator, insomuch as he 
is not himself one of the two parties, is 
merely subordinate: ‘‘the émayyeAia, 
“promise,” as @ 5ta0y«y, “covenant.” 
in which God «iséare, “is one,” without a 
eaityns having anything to do with it, stands 
higher than the v6jos, “law,” which cannot 
be conceived without the weattys, ‘“medi- 
ator,” and is essentially conditioned by him.” 
But in this interpretation Paul would not 
have said what he meant to say, and would 
have said what he did not mean. The view 
of Holsten (Deutung u. Bedeut. ad. Worte 


(ad) It would not occur to any reader to refer ei¢ 


Gai. iii. 20, Rostock 1853, and Inhalt u. 
Gedankengang des Gal. Br. 1859, pp. 39 ff., 
63 ff.) is allied to the explanation of Baur. 
Holsten understands pecitys,‘‘ mediator,” as 
referring to the law, and makes é€vos neuter : 
Between the law and the promise the rela- 
tion is not that of an ev, but of an essential 
distinction : but God is at one with Him- 
self, not presenting any difference with 
Himself, namely, in the sense of the im- 
mutability of the divine will. This explana- 
tion cannot be accepted, because it starts 
from the supposition that the law is placed 
under the category of the pecitns, * media- 
tor.”’” Paul cannot have so conceived it, be- 
cause he has said that the law was ordained 
through a peoirns, ‘* mediator ;’’ therefore 


law and mediator must have been present to 


his mind as different ideas.— Steinfass (in 
Guericke’s Zeitschr. 1856, p. 237) understands 
the literal sense definitely and correctly, 
but from the words 6 Sé @e dsets éaruv, ‘* but 
God is one,” derives the tacit idea: God 
therefore is not the other party, and conse- 
quently is not under the law—by which the 
freedom of Christ as the Son of God from 
the law is supposed to be proved. But thisis 
an idea foreign to the context and imported 
into the passage, not even quite Pauline ; 
for submission to the law certainly formed 
apart of the state of humiliation of the 
Son of God (Gal. iv. 4), while as to the 
state of exaltation His elevation above the 
law is a matter of course. 
1 See Winer, Gramm. p. 110. 


140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


to asuppressed 6 érepoc : for évéc had just been used absolutely in a numeri- 
cal sense, in which therefore ei¢ at once presents itself ; and this the more, 
because the first sentence, by its negative form, has prepared the way for an 
antithesis to follow. (¢) The idea which 6dé O¢d¢ cic éotw is supposed to in- 
dicate : therefore the law is obligatory on the Israelites, conveys something 
which is so entirely a matter of course, that it could not be made use of at 
all as an element of the dignity of the law ; for the law was, in fact, given to 
the Israelites, and even to think of that obligation as non-existent would 
have been incongruous. And (/) even assuming such a superfluous idea, 
in what a strangely mysterious way would Paul have intimated it! That 
which he meant to say, he would wholly without reason have concealed, and 
have given out as it were a riddle. Apart from the unsuitableness of the 
idea generally, and from the inappropriate eic, he must have said: 6 dé 
’"Iopaia elc gov, ‘‘ but Israel is one.” 4. Schulthess has sought to vindicate 
his interpretation,’ viz. : ‘‘ Hie mediator (Moses) non est mediator unius, 1.€., 
communis illius Dei, qui olim Abrahamo spopondit, per eum aliquando gentes 
beatum iri, et qui est unus, 8. communis omnium parens, sed est potius medi- 
ator angelorum,” ‘‘This mediator (Moses) is not a mediator of one, 7.é., 
common to that God who once promised Abraham that through Him at some 
time the nations would be blessed, and who is one, or the common parent 
of all, but is rather the mediator of angels.”? But (a) how erroneous it is to 
assume that the anarthrous évé¢ should denote the universal God of men, and 


how alien this reference is to the context ! 
ayyédwv to the notion, that Moses was ‘‘mediator angelorum” / 


(0) How opposed is the dv 
(c) How at 


variance is the idea of the law as the work of angels with the conception 
throughout the Bible (comp. on ver. 19) of the law as the work of God! In 


1 Proposed in Keil and Tzschirner’s Anal. 
II. 3, p. 183 ff. in his Mngelwelt, Engelgesetz 
und Engeldienst, Ziirich 1833, and in de G. 
Hermanno, enodatore ep. P.ad Gal., Ziirich 
1835. 

2Similar also is the interpretation of 
Caspari (in the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff.), 
that ‘‘ Moses, the middle-man of the angels 
who gave the law, is not the mediator of 
the One who gave the promise ; he is the 
mediator of many angels, but God is one.” 
Vogel’s explanation (in the Stud. wu. Kvrit. 
1865, p. 524) comes in substance to the same 
effect : “‘ Where there is a mediator, there 
is a plurality of those commissioning him ; 
such a plurality existed in the giving of the 
law; but God is one; consequently the law 
proceeded from a plurality distinct from 
God, and the anges form this plurality.” 
In opposition to Vogel, see Hilgenfeld, in 
his Zeitschrift, 1865, p. 452 ff. ; Matthias, in 
the monograph quoted at ver. 19, p. 30 ff. ; 
Hauck, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 699 ff. 
Nevertheless Hauck (in the Stud. wu. Krit. 
1862, p. 541 ff.) has likewise assumed a plu- 
rality in jegitys, mediator—the plurality of 


men, Whom Moses represents as one out of the 
midst of them (but pecitns does not mean 
this) ; hence he cannot be representative of 
the one God. Nothing in our passage can be 
regarded as more certain than that 6 peot- 
mys, applied to the act of giving the law, 
embraces in itself the idea: ov Swe Kvptos, 
‘“* what the Lord made” (not directly, but), 
ava @égOV a’TOD Kal ava METOV THY 
vidv “lopandA evTa XeEtpe 
Mwvo7, ‘between him and the children of 
Israel in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses” 
(Lev. xxvi. 46). Buhl, 7c. p. 18, has inter- 
preted the passage similarly to Hauck, but 
with an incorrect inference from the nega- 
tion of necessity to the negation of possi- 
bility: the mediator always represents a 
great number of persons ; but God is single, 
and as such does not need any mediator : 
therefore the mediator (ver. 19) cannot be 
the representative of God, but, on the con- 
trary, can only accept the law for a plural- 
ity of recipients. Thus the law stands in 
contrast to the covenant of promise, which 
was given to the One oméppa, “ seed.” 


Oper Suwa ev 


CHAPS Thiiey CO neal. 141 
how wholly different a way must Paul have spoken of and proved such a 
paradox, and how j/requently would he have reverted to it (especially in the 
Epistle to the Romans) in his antinomistic discussions !_ 5. Akin to this, as 
far as the idea is concerned, is the interpretation of Schmieder (Nova interpr. 
l. Paul Gal. iii. 19 f., Numb. 1826, and in Tholuck’s literar. Anz. 1830, No. 
54): ‘ Quivis minister vel multorum est vel unius: atqui mediator non est 
Qui multorum est minister, ad quod genus 
mediator pertinet, non est unius: atqui Deus (absolute) unus- est: ergo cum 
multorum sit mediator, non est Dei minister,” ‘‘ Every minister is either of 
many or of one ; but a mediator is not of one: therefore he is a min- 
ister of many. He who is a minister (to which class a mediator belongs) 
of many, is not of one ; but God is absolutely one : since, therefore, he isa 
minister of many, he is not a minister of God.” The connection is 
supposed to be : ‘‘ Concedo legem per angelos datam esse a Deo, non humana 
arte inventam, sed eo ipso, quod per angelos ministros, non per Deum aut Dei 
Jilium promulgata est, inferior est evangelio,” ‘‘T grant that the law was 
given by God through angels, and not devised by human art, but from the 
very fact that it was published through angels as ministers and not through 
God or the Son of God, it is inferior to the gospel.”! This interpretation is 
objectionable, (@) ina general point of view, because it rests wholly on the 
erroneous view that yecirov in ver. 19 applies not to Moses, but to the ange- 
lus mediator, ‘‘ angel mediator ;” (6) because Paul could not have expressed 
so peculiar an antinomistic argument more obscurely or more enigmatically 
than by thus omitting the essential points ; (c) because the idea of peciryc 
by no means implies that the weoiryc is the ‘‘ minister multorum:” he may 
be commissioned as well by one as by many, as, in fact, Christ was commis- 
sioned as a pecityc by One, viz., by God.? 6. Steudel, in Bengel’s Archiv. I. 
p. 124 ff., supposes that ver. 19 is an opponent’s question : ‘‘ To what purpose 
then serves thelaw? Was it bestowed merely somehow as an additional gift on 


unius: ergo est multorum minister. 


1 Schneckenburger’s explanation (in his 
Beitr. p. 189 ff., and in the Stud. uw. Krit. 
1835, p. 121) agrees with Schmieder’s. 


quorum mediator vice fungebatur,’ ‘For 
there would have been no need of a media- 
tor, if only one had borne the law ; but if a 


Huth’s attempt at an explanation (Comment. 
de loco Gal. iii. 19 f., Altenb., 1854) agrees 
partly with Schmieder and partly with 
Schulthess ; he understands ev xetpi peoitov 
of an “‘angelus mediator,” angel-mediator, 
and then in ver. 20 finds the idea that the 
law proceeds from angels, and not from 
God, as follows: ‘‘ Wediatore enim nihil opus 
Suisset, si unus tantummodo legem tulisset ; at 
si multitudo quaedam, qualis est angelorum, 
legem ferre vult tum rei summa exsequenda 
traditur uni, qui mediatoris vicem inter legis 
latores et eos gerat quibus lex destinata est. 
Haec autem ratio cadere non potest in Deum, 
quippe qui unis numero sit, ideoque mediatore 
non indigeat. Hx hoc ipso igitur, quod in 
Serenda lege Mosaica opus fuit mediatore. col- 
ligendum est, originem ejus repeti non debere 
ab uno Deo, sed a pluribus, h. e. ab angélis, 


multitude, such as that of angels, wishes to 
bear the law, then to execute the comple- 
tion of what matter pertains thereto, it is 
delivered to one who occupies the place of 
mediator between the bearers of the law 
and those for whom it has been destined. 
This method, however, cannot occur with 
respect to God, as being one in number and 
accordingly not needing a mediator. From 
the very fact, then, that in propounding the 
law of Moses, there was need of a mediator, 
it must be inferred that its origin should 
not be derived from one, viz., God, but from 
many, z.é., from the angels, whose place the 
mediator fulfilled.” 

2See also, in opposition to Schmieder, 
Liicke in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1828, p. 95 ff.; 
Winer, Hae. III. p. 171 ff. 


142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


account of transgressions (in order to be transgressed), until the seed should come 
to whom the promise applied? And yet was it made known through angels, 
and by the ministry of a mediator ?” To which Paul answers, Certainly through 
the ministry of a mediator ; only he was not the mediator of an united seed (of 
the onépyatoc tév riorebovewr, ver. 16), but God is one (not another for the 
Gentiles).” But (a) there is nothing that indicates any such division of the 
passage into dialogue ; and (/) how strange it would be that Paul should 
have grasped, and furnished a reply to, nothing but the last part of the op- 
ponent’s question, év yerpi wecitov, which, moreover, would be only a subor- 
dinate part of it! (c) The article must be added to évéc, if it is to apply to 
the orépya already spoken of (as assumed also by Jatho) ; but xo supplement 
whatever to évéd¢ is suggested by the context ;’ and if tov évd¢ orépuatoc 
were read, then, according to ver. 16, it would mean not the body of 
Christians, but Christ Himself.? (d) évd¢ and cic would be taken in different 
senses : 7. Sack * supposes that Paul avails himself of the 
idea of a mediator to limit the recognition of the law, which perhaps some 
Jewish Christians were disposed to assert to an exaggerated extent, and 


united and one.* 


says: ‘‘ The mediator, however, is not of one kind, but God is One and the 
same. Forus Christians there is certainly another mediator than Moses ; but 
God, the God in both Testaments, is nevertheless One and the same.” But 


it is obvious that évé¢ éorw cannot mean unius generis est, ‘is of one 
class,” and it is equally evident that the clause, ‘‘ for us Christians there 


1 This applies also against Kaiser’s strange 
attempt (de apologetic. Hv. Joh. consiliis, Erl. 
1824, p.7 ff.) to obtrude the entirely foreign 
supplement of vios : ‘* Hie mediator Moses non 
est unius filius, Deus autem (nempe) est unus,”? 
““This mediator, Moses, is not the son of one, 
but God is one.” Moses is not to be com- 
pared with Christ, the only-begotten Son 
of God. 

2 This remark also applies to the very 
forced and arbitrary explanation of Mich. 
Weber (Paraphr. cap. III. ep. ad. Gal. 1863) : 
“ Hic autem interventor (Moses) non est inter- 
ventor unius illius posteritatis Abrahami,quam 
paulo ante Christianos esse dixi, Israelitarum 
sed Israclitarum 
aapKainierventor quippe in quo spem suam 
jiduciam que ponunt (Joh. ii. 45). Hx hac igitur 
parte, in interventore, Israclitaé kata capKa, 
differunt ab Isradlitis kata mvevpa, quippe 
qui spem fiductamque suam non in Mose, sed 
in solo Christo ponunt, meatty @eod x. avOparav 
(1 Tim. ii. 5). Jn Deo autem (0 yé @eds) nulla 
est diversitas; nihil diseriminis Israelitis 
kata capxa cum Israditis kata mvedpa interce, 
dit, cundem Deum verum colunt illi quem hi- 
Deus est unus idemque. Utrique habent qui- 
dem &Aov Kat adAov interventorem, non autem 
aAAov kat addAov Deum,” ‘This intercessor 
(Moses), however, is not the intercessor of 
that one posterity of Abraham, which 


KaTa Tvevdpma, KaTa 


shortly before I have said to be Christians, 
viz., the intercessor of Israelites according 
to the spirit, but of Israelites according to 
the flesh, since they put in him their hope 
and confidence (Johnii. 45). In this respect, 
therefore, in the intercessor, Israelites ac- 
cording to the flesh differ from Israelites 
according to the spirit, since they put their 
hope and trust not in Moses, but in Christ 
alone, the mediator between God and men 
(1 Tim. ii. 5). In God, however, there is no 
diversity; no distinction intervenes between 
Israelites according to the flesh and Israel- 
ites according to the spirit; the former 
worship the same true God as the latter; 
their God is one and the same. They have 
different intercessors, but not different 
gods.” 

3 And in eis the relation of God to the 
Jews and Gentiles would be arbitrarily as- 
sumed. This is also done by the anonymous 
writer, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 331 ff., 
according to whom our passage is intended 
to assert that the mediator of the law was 
not only the mediator of God, but also had 
reference to the Jewish people, whereas 
God with His promise had reference to all 
the nations of the earth, both Jews and 
Gentiles. 

4 In the 7%ib. Zeitschr. 1881. I. p. 106 f. 


CHAP. I1I.,.20, 21. 143 


is certainly,” etc., is arbitrarily brought in. See also Schneckenburger,' 
and (in opposition to Steudel, Kern, and Sack) Winer.* 8. Hermann : Jn- 
terventor non est unius (i.e., interventor ubi est, duos minimum esse oportet, inter 
quos ille interveniat) ; Deus autem unus est: ergo apud Deum non cogitart po- 
test interventor ; esset enim is, qui intercederet inter Deum et Deum, quod ab- 
surdum est,” ‘‘ An intercessor is not of one (i.e., wherever there is an in- 
tercessor, there must be at least two with whom he intercedes) ; God, how- 
ever, is of one ; therefore an intercessor with God cannot be thought of ; 
for he would have to be one to intercede between God and God, which 
is absurd.” And the connection is: ‘‘ Id agebat P. ut ostenderet, legem 
Mosis, quae nihil neque cum promissione Abrahamo data neque cum praesente 
effectione promissionis commune haberet, dumtazat interim valuisse, jam autem 
non amplius valere.  Rationem reddit hane, quod superaddita sit (ideo 
x pocetédn dixit), eoque non pertineat ad testamentum, cui non liceat quidquam 
addi ; deinde quod non, sicut testamentum illud, ab ipso Deo condita et data, sed 
disposita per angelos allataque sit manu interventoris : atqui interventori, quod 
interventor non sit unius, non esse locum apud Deum, qui unus sit, utpote testa- 
tor, cujus unius ex voluntate nemine intercedente haereditatem capiat haeres,” 
‘¢Paul did this to show that the law of Moses, which had nothing in 
common with the promise given to Abraham, nor with the present effect 
of the promise, only had been some time valid, but was now no longer 
valid. He gives this reason, that it was added (he said accordingly zpoce- 
réOy), and accordingly does not pertain to the covenant, whereto nothing 
- could be added ; then that it was not instituted by God Himself and given, 
as that former covenant, but ordained by angels and delivered by the hand 
of a mediator ; but for the intercessor, since he is not the intercessor of one, 
there is no place with God, who is one, seeing that He is the testator, from 
the will of whom alone and without the intervention of any one, the heir 
receives the inheritance.” But (a) it could not be expected that the reader 
should derive from ver. 20 the idea that no mediator is conceivable in the 
ease of God on account of His oneness ; nor could it be so conceived by 
Paul himself, for, in fact, with the one God a mediator may certainly have 
a place,—not, however, ‘‘ inter Deum et Deum,” ‘‘ between God and God,” 
into which absurdity no one could fall, unless Paul so expressed it, but inter 
Deum et homines, ‘‘ God and men,” in which office the history of the theoc- 
racy showed so many mediators and at last Christ Himself. (0) The question 
in ver. 21 (oiv), with the answer expressive of horror, pz yévoiro, presupposes 
that the subject-matter of this question—consequently an antagonistic rela- 
tion of the law to the promises—might possibly (although quite unduly) be 
derived from ver. 20. But according to Hermann, Paul in vv. 19 and 20 
has already proved that an antagonism of the law to the promises does not 
exist, that the law was no longer valid, and had nothing at all in common 
with the promises. So, in a logical point of view, the question in ver. 21, 
6 obv véuoc K.T.A., Could not be asked, nor could the answer py yévorro be 
made. (c) It may, besides, be urged against Hermann, that not only is d/ 


1 Beitr. p. 187 f. 2 Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. V1. 1, p. 31 fe. 


144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


ayy. év yerpt peo. regarded as lowering the authority of the law, but a quite 
undue stress is also laid upon rpoceré67 ; for in ver. 19 the emphasis lies on 
Tov rapaB. yaprv. 9 Matthies’ interprets : ‘‘ But the mediator . . . does not 
relate to one, for his nature is in fact divided or disunited, since he is placed 
between two sides or parties opposed to one another ; and therefore in connection 
with him we cannot think of unity, but only of duality, or of the variance sub- 
sisting between two parties ; but God is One, comprehends in Himself nothing 
but unity, so that His nature contains no variance or disunion.” Thus 
also, in the main, de Wette,? and among the older expositors Jac. Cap- 
pellus. But the simple numerical conception of unity is thus arbitrarily 
transformed into the philosophical idea, and the contrast of plurality is 
turned into the contrast of diswnion. How could a reader discover in 6 Oed¢ 
ei¢ éorev anything else than the popular doctrine of Monotheism? 10. 
Schott : ‘‘ Mediator quidem non uni tantum (eidemque immutabili) addictus 
est homini 8. parti, i.e., in quavis causa humana, quae mediatore indiget, duae 
certe adsunt partes, quibus wecitne inserviat, sive res inter duos tantum hom- 
ines singulos transigatur, sive multitudo sit ingens eorum, qui alterutram vel 
utramque partem constituant (v. ¢. populus) . . . ubi plures imo multi ejusdem 
JSoederis participes sunt et fiunt (praesertim ubi maxima est singulorum vicissi- 
tudo, dum mortuis succedunt posteri), facile etiam mutatis animorum consiliis 
atque propositis, foedus mutatur aut tollitur, pecity cujus ope constitutum 
Suerat haud impediente . . . proinde ex eo quidem, quod lex Sinaitica év 
xetpt wecirov promulgata est (ver. 19), non sequitur auctoritatem ei compe- 
tere perpetuam [his verbis P. corrigere voluit perversam eorum opinionem, qui in 
defendenda legis auctoritate perpetua valitura ad personam Mosis mediatoris 
provocarent| . . . attamen Deus est unus, qui semper idem manet Deus immu- 
tabilis, foedus legislationis Sinaiticae non fuit humanae, sed divinae auctorita- 
tis, neque ab arbitrio hominum, sed a voluntate Dei pendebat immutabilis. 
His perpendendis quaestio excitabatur (ver. 21), an forte haee legislatio Sinait. 
auctoritate divina insignis ipso Deo jubente promissionem Abrahamo datam 
ejusmodi limitibus circumscribere (mutare) voluerit, ut non amplius esset pro- 
missio, cujus eventus liberae tantum Dei gratiae adnecteretur,” ‘‘ A mediator, 
indeed, is not devoted to only one (and that too an immutable) man or 
party, @.e., in every human cause that needs a mediator, there are undoubt- 
edly two parties present which the mediator serves, whether the transaction 
be between only two individuals, or the multitude of those constituting one 
or the other party be great, e.g., the people . - . where a number, aye, many 
are and become sharers in the same covenant (especially where the change 
of individuals is very great, when posterity succeed the dead), and where 
the designs and purposes of minds being easily changed, the covenant is 
easily changed or annulled, when the mediator by whose aid it was estab- 
lished does not hinder. . . . Hence from the fact that the Sinaitic law was- 
promulgated ‘in the hand of a mediator’ (ver. 19) it does not follow that 


1 As in substance also Rinck, Zucubdr. clause is merely: “that which God in Him- 
erit. p. 172 ff., and in the Stud. u. Kvrit. 1834, self, irrespective of the disunion which has 
p. 309 ff. arisen between Him and men, has promised, 

2 According to him, the idea in thesecond _ is elevated above this disunion.” 


CHAP! TL. 20521 145 


perpetual authority belongs thereto [by these words, Paul wished to correct 
the perverse opinion of those who in defending the perpetually valid author- 
ity of the law appealed to the authority of Moses]. . . . Yet God is one, 
who always remains the same immutable God, and the covenant of Sinaitic 
legislation was not of human, but of divine authority, and did not depend 
upon the will of men, but upon the will of the immutable God. In weigh- 
ing these things, the question was excited (ver. 21) as to whether perhaps this 
Sinaitic legislation, notable by its divine authority, God himself command- 
ing it, was intended to circumscribe (change) the promise given to Abraham 
by such limits, that it would be no longer a promise, whose issue would be 
dependent only upon the free grace of God.” How much is supplied by the 
expositor in this interpretation, so copiously provided with modifying 
clauses! But it is decidedly erroneous, on account of the sense of cic and 
évéc being changed into the idea of immutabdilis, ‘‘immutable,”? and also 
because the proposition 6 dé yecirn¢ évdg ovK éarv is limited to causae humanae, 
and yet the inference is supposed to be therein conveyed that the Sinaitic 
legislation is not always valid. Paul assuredly could never have thus illogi- 
cally corrected the zealots for the law, and then in the very same breath have 
set aside the inference by attamen Deus est unus, ‘‘ but nevertheless God is 
One.” 11. Gurlitt® refers évé¢ to the Gentile Christians, as one of the two 
divisions of the orépya ’ABp. : ‘‘ The law was given through angels and 
through a mediator, and God indeed is throughout only One; what proceeds 
Jrom Him, therefore, demands in every case equal recognition. It must 
nevertheless be taken into consideration, that the mediator is no mediator 
of those who were previously Gentiles, and that therefore the law was 
not destined for the latter by God Himself.” But, apart from the fact that in 
this view of évé¢ there must have been previous mention of a twofold pos- 
terity of Abraham and row évé¢ must have been here used, and not to men- 
tion that the évé¢ and ei¢ are not taken as alike in sense, the interpretation 
must be at once pronounced decidedly wrong, because it depends upon the 
erroneous view that the orépua, vv. 16, 19, means not merely Christ Him- 
self, but also the corpus mysticum, ‘‘ mystical body,” of Christ. 12. Olshau- 
sen, taking 6 dé Ocdc ele éorvv as : God is one or a single one, and consequently 
only one party, explains it thus : ‘‘ Mediation presupposes a state of separa- 
tion, and there can be no mediation in the case of one ; since God is the one 
party, there must also have been a second, viz., men, who were separated ' 
from God: In the gospel it is otherwise : in Christ, the representative of 
the Church, all are one ; all separations and distinctions are done away 
in Him” (ver. 28). Thus Paul, in order to call attention to the inferiority 
of the law to the gospel, gives a cursory, parenthetic explanation as to the 
idea of a mediator. This is (1) unsuitable to the context ; for in ver. 19, 
diatay. dV ayyédwv év yerpi peo. has set forth the glory of the giving of the law. 
(2) The idea: and consequently also only one party, is quite arbitrarily added to 
6 dé Bed eic éorev. (8) In like manner, all the rest which is supposed properly 


1 For which Schott should not haye ap- 2 Inthe Stud. wu. Krit. 1837, p. 806 ff. ; 1843, 
pealed to Rom. iii. 30, Phil. i. 27. D: 16 it. 


10 


145 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


to constitute the sense of the words (‘‘ men, who were separated from God ;” 
‘in the gospel it is otherwise,” etc.) is the pure invention of the expositor. 
13. Matthias,’ correctly explaining the first half of the verse, sees im 6 dé 
Gcbc cic gor the minor premiss of an enthymeme, which has to be completed 
by supplying the major premiss and conclusion : ‘‘ If God is one of those two 
parties, the law, although ordained by angels, is nevertheless ‘an ordinance of 
God ; but God is this ; and consequently the law, ete., is an ordinance, not of 
angels, but of God.” Against this interpretation we may urge that the special 
connection with the point dvatayeic¢ dv ayyédov is not conveyed by the text ; 
that the explanation of ei¢ by alter is contrary to the context ; that ver, 21 
would be unsuitably subjoined from a logical point of view (see on xara, 
ver. 21) ; and lastly, that the idea of the law being an ordinance of God 
was one altogether undisputed and not needing any proof. 14. Ewald? 
assumes that Paul with this ‘‘ quick flash of thought” intended to say : 
‘‘The idea of the mediator necessarily presupposes two different living 
beings between whom, as being at variance or separated, mediation has to 
take place ; because the mediator of one is not, does not erist at all, is an im- 
possibility. But since G’od is in strictness only One, and does not consist of 
two inwardly different Gods or of an earlier and later God, it is evident that 
Moses as mediator did not mediate between the God of the promise and the 
God of the law, and thereby mix up the law with the promise and cancel 
the promise by the later law ; but he only mediated (as is well known) 
between God and the people of that time.” But even this interpretation, 
the thought of which would probably have been expressed most simply 
by Paul writing 6 62 pecityg Ocov éativ, 6 dé Cede Eig éoTL, 18 liable to the 
objections urged above (under 8) against Hermann’s explanation. 15. 
According to Hofmann (compare also his Schriftbew. I. 2, p. 55 ff), 
the jirst half of the verse is intended to affirm that, where there is only 
one to whom something is to be given, there is no room for mediatorship ; such 
an individual recipient may receive it directly. Now, as the promise ran 
to Abraham’s posterity as an unity, it is evident that the giving of the law, 
just because it was destined for a plurality of individuals, could be no 
fulfilment of the promise. The second half of the verse, which with dé passes 
on to the divine side of the event, places the unity of God in contradistinetion 
to the plurality of angels; that which comes to men through the latter must be of 
a different kind from the promised gift, which the One was to give to the One— 
the one God to the one Christ. Thus on this side also it is clear that the 
giving of the law was not the fulfilment of the promise, but was only 
ordained for the time, until Christ should come. But (a) all this artificial 
interpretation must at once fall to the ground, because it conceives évéc to 
be opposed to a plurality of recipient subjects ; for it is not true that the 
bestowal through a mediator presupposes such a plurality, seeing that it 
may take place just as well with one as with many recipients. (0) It is in- 
correct that the unity of God is placed in contrast with the plurality of 


1 After several earlier attempts, accord- graph quoted at ver. 15. 
‘ling to his last view of 1866, in the mono- 2 Comp. also his Jahrb. IV. p. 109. 


GHAP, 11m. 20, 21. 147 


angels (which is not even marked, by roAAév ayy. or the like): it stands in 
contrast to the évd¢ ov« gor, and it is untrue that the ‘‘ mediateness of the 
giving involved its taking place through many’—just as if the mediate 
giving could not with equal fitness take place through one, as in fact it has 
very often been given by God through one! (ec) Paul’s intention is, not to 
show that the giving of the law was not the fulfilment of the promise, but, 
as is clearly evident from ver. 21, to show that the law was not opposed to 
the promise. — 16. Wieseler : ‘‘ Moses as mediator, however (dé being restrictive), 
has reference not merely to God (but also to men): for a mediator from his 
nature has not reference to one (but to two parties) ; but God is one. Conse- 
quently the failure of that mediatorial office of Moses was based on the fact, 
that he as mediator had to do not only with God, but also with men. The 
fault does not lie with the faithfulness of God, who appointed him as medi- 
ator,—an idea which cannot be entertained,—but rather with the action of 
men,” etc. Against this interpretation it may be urged, not only that the 
words eic¢ éotvy imperceptibly acquire the sense : is only one of the two parties, 
which Paul would certainly have been able to express otherwise than by the 
confession of monotheism (Deut. vi. 4 ; Jas. ii. 19 ; Rom. iii. 30; 1 Cor. 
viii. 4, 6, ef al)., but also that the idea of a failure on the part of the law- 
giving, and of the blame due for it, was remote from the apostle’s mind, 
and would here be unsuitable to the divine purpose expressed in ver. 19. 
The law became to men the divayie rij¢ duapriac, ‘‘strength of sin” (1 Cor. xv. 
56) ; but this falls to be regarded not as a failure on the part of the law- 
giving, but as a necessary stage in the development of the divine plan of salva- 
tion (ver. 22 ff.; Rom. vii.). 17. According to Stélting,’ évd¢ and ec are to 
be taken in the sense of absolute unity. Ver. 20 is supposed to contain a 
syllogism with a suppressed conclusion: viz., A mediator does not belong to 
one ; but God is one ; consequently a mediator does not belong to God. 
Accordingly God is absolutely excluded from any mediation through the law : 
the objects of this mediation are on the one hand the Jews, and on the other 
hand their contrast, the Gentiles ; and the law was to unite these two disso- 
ciated parts, which it effected by showing that the Jews were in need of 
redemption, and by making the Gentiles capable of redemption (Rom. iii. 
22 f., 29f.). The mediator, with the law in his hand, is supposed to have 
placed himself between Jews and Gentiles, and to have made both egual 
through the law,—an equalization which does not take place with God, as 
there is not one God of the Jews and another God of the Gentiles, between 
whom mediation might occur, but only a single God, who treats Jews and 
Gentiles with equal justice, being, as He is, a single Person without oppo- 
nent, an absolute unity. Even this acutely carried out interpretation is not 
tenable : for (a) the reader finds no indication in the text that évéc and etc 
are to be taken inthe pregnant sense of absoluteness ; and Paul, in order to be 
understood, must at least have written, in the second half of the verse, some- 
thing like 6 dé Oed¢ 6 évTwe cic (Or 6 dx/0¢ ec) éorw, ‘‘ God is actually or abso- 
lutely one. Nor (0) isit correct that absolute unity excludes the being an object 





1 Beitrige z. Hxeg. d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 86 ff. 


148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

of mediation ; because the absolutely one God has allowed mediation to 
take place between Himself and man, not only through Christ, but also in the 
ancient history of salvation, through His ministers (the angels, Moses, and 
the prophets). (c) There is nothing in the words of the passage to make us 
think of the Jews and Gentiles as objects of the mediation ; since the law is 
rather to be recognized as the wecdéroyov, ‘‘ middle wall” (Eph. ii. 14) between 
the two, which had to be removed by Christ in order to their union. Tothe 
national consciousness, not only of the apostle, but also of his readers, God and 
Israel could alone occur as the parties reconciled with one another through 
the peoirnc. (d) It is not correct that the conclusion drawn from ver. 20 is 
not expressed. It is expressed in ver. 21, and rejected as erroneous.—Lastly, 
Riickert confines himself to the correct translation of the words, ‘‘ The me- 
diator does not refer to one (but always to more than one) ; but God is one ;” 
from which is to be concluded, ‘‘ Therefore the mediator does not refer to God 
alone, but also to others.” Ye, however, at the same time confesses that 
he does not see any way, in which these propositions and this conclusion 
are to be connected with the foregoing passage, so as to yield any relevant 
and lucid thought. While Riickert has thus despaired of an explanation on 
his own part, he has not questioned the title of the passage to receive an 
explanation. But this course, to which Michaelis was already inclined,’ 
has been actually adopted by Liicke,* who holds ver. 20 to be a gloss, 
which had originally served, on the one hand, to explain the conclusion 
of ver. 19 (the mediator was interpreted as applying to Christ, and it 
was desirable to point out that this mediator belonged not merely to the 
Jews, but also to the Gentiles), and, on the other, to give a reason for the 
beginning of ver. 21. But the witnesses in favor of its genuineness * are so 
decisively unanimous, that no other passage can appear better attested. 
Liicke only makes use of an argumentum a silentio,—namely, that Irenaeus, 
Tertullian, and Origen do not cite our verse ;* but little stress can be laid 
on this, when we consider how lightly in general the Fathers were wont to 
pass over the words in question, without even discerning in them any 
special importance or difficulty. [See Note L., p. 161.] 

Ver. 21. 6 otv véuoc Kata Tov éxayyediov;] otv, the reference of which is 
differently explained according to the different interpretations of ver. 20, 
draws an inference, not from the definition of the object of the law in ver. 
19,° but from ver. 20, which is not arbitrarily to be set aside, or to be treat- 


1“T wished, in fact, that it were allow- text compiled from adouble gloss. Only 


able for me in the explanation to pass over 
the whole verse, and to give it out as a 
marginal note of some reader not under- 
standing Paul, which had found its way 
into the text.”—Michaelis, Paraphr. p. 33, 
ed. 2. 

21Tn the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 83 ff. 

3 There is not even the slightest variation 
in the individual words, or in their arrange- 
ment,—a fact which, judging by critical 
analogy, would be scarcely conceivable ina 


the A4ith. adds duorum at the end, evi- 
dently an exegetical addition, the author of 
which appears to have had in his mind some 
explanation which bore a similarity to that 
of Clarke, Locke, Winer, or Gurlitt. 

4 Clement of Alexandria has it at least 
once, in the Theodot. ed. Col. p. 797 A. 

§ Castalio, Luther, Gomarus, Pareus, 
Estius, Bengel, and others, including Liicke, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Wieseler, Hofmann, 
Stiélting. 


CHAP, JIE. «24: 149 
ed merely as an appendage of ver. 19.7. The law, namely, which was given 
through a mediator, and therefore essentially otherwise than the promise, 
might thereby appear to introduce on the part of God another way of grant- 
ing the Messianic salvation than the promises, and consequently to be opposed 
to the latter.? —xata tév émayyedidv| See vv. 8,16. The xard is the usual 
contra, in opposition to. Matthias incorrectly explains it : ‘‘Is it included 
under the idea of the promises ?” Since the simple éori—and not, possibly, 
tacceta, ‘‘ arrayed” %—is to be supplied, the expression would be wholly 
without the sanction of usage. Moreover, looking to the specific difference 
in the ideas of the two things, Paul could not have asked such a question at 
all. — ei yap £060y vduoc x.t-2] ground assigned for the yu yévouro, and there- 
fore proof that it would be incorrect to conclude from ver. 20 that the law 
was opposed to the promises. For if it had been opposed to the promises, 
the law must have been in a position to procure life ;* and if this were so, 
then would righteousness actually be from the law,’ which, according to the 
Scriptures, cannot be the case (ver. 22). — vduoc] just as in the whole con- 
text : the Mosaic law, although without the article, as in il. 21, iii. 11, 18 ; 
Winer, p. 117.—6 dvvau. (wor.] The article marks off the definite quali- 
ty which, in the words ei yap éd66y vduoc, is conceived by the law-giver 
as belonging to the law:° as that which is able to give life ; and this is the 
point of this conditional sentence. — Cworomjoa] ‘* Hoc verbo praesupponi- 
tur mors peccatori intentata,” ‘‘By this word, the death threatened 
against the sinner is presupposed,” Bengel. The «7, however, which the law 
is not able to furnish, is not the being alive morally,’ but, in harmony 
with the context, the everlasting Messianic life (see Kiiuffer, de bibl. Cw7e¢ 
alwviov notione, p. 75), as is evident from ver. 18 (ci yap ék véuov 7 KAnpovopia) 
and from ver. 22. Comp. also 2 Cor. iii. 6. The moral quickening is pre- 
supposed in this Cworoujoa. The law, in itself good and holy, could not sub- 
due the dominion of the principle of sin in man (Rom. viii. 8), but rather 
necessarily served to promote this dominion (see on ver. 19), and was there- 
fore unable to bring about the eternal life which was dependent on obedi- 
ence to the law (ver. 12): given unto life, it was found unto death, Rom. 
vii. 10. Paul never uses Cworoeiv of the moral quickening, nor cvf{woroeiv 
either (Eph. ii. 5 ; Col. ii. 13). The €o# is the eternal life which is mani- 
fested at the Parousia (Col. iii. 3 f.), and therefore in reality the «Anpovouia 


1 Also in 1 Cor. vi. 15, odv (in opposition to 
Stdlting’s appeal to the passage) introduces 
a possible (mischievous) inference from 
what immediately precedes, to be at once 
repelled with horror by p7 yevorto. 

2 See the fuller statement at ver. 20. 

3 See Lobeck, Phryn. p. 272. 

4This consequence depends upon the 
dilemma: Life may be procured either 
through the promises ov through the law. 
If, therefore, the law stands in opposition 
to the promises, so that the latter shall no 
longer be valid, the 7aw must be able to 
procure life. This dilemma is correct, 


because no third possibility is given in the 
divine plan of salvation. 

5 Even if av be not genuine, this interpre- 
tation is not altered (Buttmann, neuvt. Gr. 
p. 194, 6); and we cannot explain (with Hof- 
mann): ‘If there was given, etc., then 
was,” ete. This imperfect (erat) would be 
illogical; Paul would have written éeoriv or 
yeyovev, 

6 Winer, p. 127; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 
We ust 

7 Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Olshausen, 


‘Ewald, Wieseler, Hauck, Hofmann, Buhl, 


and others, following older expositors. 


150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


(vv. 18, 29).1 — dvrwc¢ Ex vduov av jv 7 Stxatoobvy] then in reality (not merely in 
Jewish imagination) the law would be that, from which the existence of right- 
eousness would proceed, namely, by its enabling men to offer complete obe- 
dience. The argument proceeds ab effectu, ‘‘ from the effect” (Cworogear), 
ad causam, ‘‘to the cause” (7 dicacocbvy), for, without being righteous before 
God, man cannot attain eternal life : not as Riickert, Wieseler, Hofmann, 
and others, in accordance with their view of Cwor., are compelled to assume, 
a causa (the new moral life whereby the law is fulfilled) ad effectum, ‘* for 
the effect” (the dcxasoctvy which would be acquired by the fulfilment of 
the law). The relation between Gworoujoa and 7 dicavocivy is aptly indicated 
by Oecumenius : ov« écwcoev ovdé édixaiwoev, ‘‘neither saved nor justified,” 
and by Bengel: ‘‘ Justitia est vitae fundamentum, ‘‘ Righteousness is the 
foundation of life.” 

Ver. 22. But the case supposed (£647 véuocg 6 Suva. Cworormoar) does not 
exist : for, on the contrary, according to the Scriptures all men have been 
subjected to the dominion of sin, and the purpose of God therein was, that 
the promised salvation should not come from the law, but should be bestowed 
on believers on account of faith in Christ. [See Note LI., p. 161.] What 
sort of position is assigned under these circumstances to the lav, is then 
stated in ver. 23. — ovvéxdercev 7 ypady x.t.A.] Scripture is personified, as in 
ver. 8. That which God has done, because it is divinely revealed and attest- 
ed in Scripture (see Rom. iii. 9-19) and thereby appears an infallible certain- 
ty, isrepresented as the act of Scripture, which the latter, as in its utterances 
the professed self-revelation of God, has accomplished. 'The Scripture—that 
is, when regarded apart from the personification, God, according to the di- 
vine testimony of the Scripture—has brought all into ward under sin, that is, 
has put the whole of mankind without exception into the relation of bond- 
age, in which sin (comp. Rom. iii. 9) has them, as it were, under lock and 
key, so that they cannot escape from this control and attain to moral free- 
dom. On the figurative expression, and on the conception of the matter as 
a divine measure (not a mere declaration), compare on Rom. xi. 32. Fol- 
lowing Chrysostom (7AéyZev) and others, Hermann finds the sense : ‘‘ per le- 
gem demum cognitum esse peccatum,” ‘‘that only by the law is sin known” 
(Rom. vii. 7 f., iii. 19 ff.), which, however, does not correspond with the 
significance of the carefully-chosen ovvéxAeccev, and is also at varianee with 
 ypaoh, which is by no means? equivalent to véuoc, but denotes the O. T., 
whilst 6 véj0¢ in the whole connection is the institute of the law. The bond 
of guilt which is implied in the dominion of sin is obvious of itself, without 
any need for explaining dyapriav as the guilt of sin. — Moreover, the empha- 
sis is on the prefixed cuvéxiewev : included, so that freedom, that is, the at- 
tainment of dicacocbvy, is not to be thought of. uyxdeieww, however, does 
not denote : to include together, with one another, as Bengel, Usteri, and 
others hold,* which is clearly proved by the fact that the word is very often 


1Comp. ¢yoerat, ver. 12, to which our Theodoret), Beza, Calvin, Baumgarten, 
Gwor. glances back. Crusius and others think. 
2 As, following the Fathers (but not $3 Not even in Rom. xi. 382. 


CHAP. III., 23. 151 
used of the shutting up of one, unaccompanied by others ;* but cvv corre- 
sponds to the idea of complete custody, so that the enclosed are entirely and 
absolutely held in by the barriers in question.” — ra ravra] the collective whole, 
not : ail which man ought to do (Ewald), but like tov¢ tavtac, Rom. xi. 32. 
The neuter used of persons, who are thus brought under the point of view 
of the general category: the ¢totality.* According to Calvin, Beza, Wolf, 
Bengel, and others (comp. also Hofmann), ra xdvra is supposed to refer not 
But the 
figurative cvvéx2eer, and also the context by roi¢ riatebovor and the personal 
indications contained in ver. 23 ff., give the preference to our interpreta- 
tion. Besides, ra ravra, taken of things, would mean all things,* which is 
here unsuitable.® — iva 7 éxayyetia x.t.4.| the purpose ef God, because that 
which was previously represented as the action of Seripture was in reality 
the action of God.* — 7 érayyeria| that which was promised, a sense which the 
abstract receives through dofj." That which is meant is the promised gift, 
already well known from the context, namely, the cAypovouia, vv. 16, 18. — 
éx xiotewc| not from obedience to the law, which with that subjection under 
the control of sin was impossible, but so that the divine bestowal proceeds, 
as regards its subjective cause, from faith in Jesus Christ.* The emphasis is 
on this éx rior. I. X., and not on érayyedia (Hofmann).? — toig miotebovar] is 
explained by Winer and others as an apparent tautology arising from the 
importance of this proposition (and therefore emphatic); but without ade- 
quate ground ;*° the expression, on the contrary, is quite in keeping with 
the circumstances of the Galatians. That salvation was intended jor believ- 
ers, was not denied ; but they held to the opinion that obedience to the law 
must necessarily be the procuring cause of this salvation. Paul therefore 
says: in order that, in virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, not in virtue of obe- 
dience to the law, salvation should be given to the believers—so that thus 
the believers have no need of anything further than faith.” 

Ver. 23. Aé| no longer connected with 4224 (Hofmann), but leading over 
to anew portion of the statement (the counterpart to which is to follow in 
ver. 25),—namely, to the position which the law held under the circum- 
stances expressed in ver. 25. Before the introduction of faith, it was to 
guard and maintain those who belonged to it in this relation of bondage, so 
that they should not get rid of it and become free,—a liberation which was 
reserved for the fazth which was to come. — rpé rov dé éAeiv] dé in the third 


merely to men, but also to everything which they are, have, or do. 





21Sam. xxiv. 19; Ps: xxxi. 9; Polyb: xi. 
2.10; 1 Macc. xi. 66, xii. 7. 

2 Comp. Herod. vii. 129: Acuvy cvyKAnic- 
evn wavrover, “a harbor shut in from every 
side,” Eur. Hec. 487 ; Polyb. i. 17. 8, i. 51. 10, 
jii. 117. 11; also Plat. Tim. p. 71 C, where it 
is used with éudparrecy ; 1 Mace. iv. 31, v. 5. 
Una inciudere, * shut in together,’’ would be 
ovykatakAeie.v, Herod. i. 182; Lucian, Vit. 
aubt. 9, D. mort. xiv. 4. 

3 See on 1 Cor. i. 27 ; Arrian. v. 22. 1. 

4 Xen. Mem. i. 11; Rom. xi. 36, e¢ al. 


5 Comp. on the matter itself, Rom. iii. 
9, 19. 

6 Therefore we must not (with Semler, 
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Winer, Matthi- 
as, and others) explain it ‘‘ logically : that 
it might appear to be given,” etc. 

7 Comp. ver. 14. 

8 Comp. ver. 8. 

® See ver. 28 ff. 

10 Passages such as ver. 9, Rom. i. 17, Phil. 
iii. 9, are not relevant here. 

11 Comp. v. 4 f. 


152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

place with the prepositional phrase.’ — Here also xiorie is neither doctrina 
Jidem postulans, *‘ the doctrine demanding faith,” the gospel, as most ancient 
expositors and Schott think, nor the dispensution of faith,* but subjective faith, 
which is treated objectively. Comp. oni. 23, iii. 2. As long as there was 
not yet any belief in Christ, faith was not yet present ; but when on the 
preaching of the gospel men believed in Christ, the faith, which was previ- 
ously wanting, had come, that is, had now set in, had presented itself,— 
namely, in the hearts of those who had become believers. On éAéeiv as ap- 
plied to mental things and states, which set in, comp. Pind. Nem. i. 48 
(hopes); Plat. Pol. iii. p. 402 A (understanding) ; Soph. O. R. 681 (déxyoxc, 
opinion). Comp. also Rom. vii. 9.—izd voyuov idporpoiueba cvyKrerduevor} 
(see the critical notes) : under the law we were held in custody, so that we were 
placed in ward with a view to the faith about to be revealed. The subject 
is: we Jewish Christians (ver. 25) ; the emphasis is on izd véuov, and after- 
wards on ziorwv. The law is represented as a ruler, under whose dominion 
(ird véuov) those who belonged to it were held in moral captivity, as in a 
prison ; so that they, as persons shut up in the gpoupa, ‘‘ ward,” under lock 
and key, were placed beyond the possibility of liberation—which was only 
to ensue by means of the faith that was to be revealed in the future. The 
words and the context do not yield more than this : the puedagogic efficacy 
of the law is not inferred till ver. 24, and is not to be anticipated here. 
This view is opposed to that of many expositors,4 who find already expressed 
here that paedagogie function, which, however, is understood in the sense 
of the ‘‘usus politicus,” ‘‘ political use,” of the law (but see on ver, 24): ‘‘in 
severam legis disciplinam, quae ne in omnem libidinem effunderemur cavit, 
traditi,” ‘‘ delivered to the strict discipline of the law, which guarded us from 
giving ourselves over to every lust,” Winer. But the whole explanation of 
the law guarding from sin (to which also Wieseler refers égpovp.) is opposed 
to the correct interpretation of trav rapaBdoewy yapw (ver. 19), and also to 
ver. 22. The captivity so forcibly described by Paul is just the sinful 
bondage under the Jaw, Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 56. Observe, moreover, in 
order to a just understanding of the passage, that id véuov, according to 
the very position of the words, cannot without proceeding arbitrarily 
be connected with ovyxd.*—a connection which is not warranted by the 


1See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 397 ; Klotz, Plat. Av. p. 365 E; ¢povpa, Plat. Phaed. 


ad Devar. II. p. 878 f. 

2 Buhl, comp. Riickert. 

3 If, with Winer, Usteri, and Schott, éhpovp. 
is explained merely as asservabamur (1 Pet. 
i. 5),—comp. Hofmann, ‘ we were held in 
keeping,’—it yields, according to the con- 
nection with ovyxexAecouevor, and with the 
inference thereupon of the paedagogic func- 
tion of the law, too weak a thought. Comp. 
Wisd. xvii. 16. Luther, Calvin, and many 
others, including Riickert and de Wette, 
have rightly found in éfpovp. and cvykeka. 
the figurative idea of a prison (fpovprov 


p. 62 ff). The prison, however, is not the law 
itself; but the latter is the ruler, under 
whose power the captives are in prison,— 
because, namely, under the law, as the 
Svvamts THs amaptias (1 Cor. xv. 56), they are 
not in a position to attain to the freedom 
of moral life. 

4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, 
Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Winer, Riickert, 
Schott, Ewald, and others. 

5So de Wette, Wieseler, and many 
others, also my own former interpretation. 


CHAP. III., 23. 153 
other thought, ver. 22,—but must be joined to é¢povp ;* and further, that 
the present participle cvyxAecéuevoc (with the ei¢ rv ué2.2. x.7.A2. belonging to 
it) forms the modal definition of épporpobtucba, representing the continued opera- 
tion of the latter, which, constantly appearing in fresh acts, renders libera- 
tion impossible. Hofmann? understands ovyxdeiew eic in the sense ef con- 
straining to something ; it expresses in his view the constraining power, with 
which subjection to the law served to keep the people directed towards the 
faith which was to be revealed in the future.* Such an use of the phrase is 
indubitably found among later Greek authors, and_is especially frequent in 
Polybius ;* but how improbable, and in fact incredible it is, that Paul should 
have here used this word in a different sense from that in which he used it 
immediately before in ver. 22, and in the kindred passage, Rom. xi. 32 (he 
has it-not elsewhere)! This sense could not have occurred to any reader. 
Besides, the idea of constraint against one’s will, which must be conveyed in 
ovyKAeou. eic,° and which Hofmann obliterates (‘‘the law conferred on the 
people its distinctive position, and its abiding in this distinctive position was 
at the same time an abiding directed towards the faith that was to come”), 
would neither agree with the text (vv. 22, 24) nor harmonize with history.*® 
—elc Tv péADovoay riot aroxadvebyvar] AS cic in Ver. 24 is evidently to be 
understood as felic, and as the temporal interpretation wsque ad, ‘‘up to,” 7 after 
mpd Tov éAeiv tiv wiotw, Which includes in itself the terminus ad quem, would 
be very unmeaning, eic is to be explained : towards the faith, that is, with 
the design, that we should pass over into the state of faith. Luther (1519) 
aptly remarks: ‘‘in hoc, ut fide futura liberaremur,” ‘‘in this, that 
we should be freed by future faith.” In accordance with the view 
of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Calovius, Raphel, Bengel, Hof- 
mann, ¢ic¢ x.7.2. is to be connected with cvyxAetwdpuevor, because the latter, 
without this annexation of the telic statement cic «.7.2., would not form a 
characteristic modal definition of égpovp. This eic¢ «.7.A. is, in the history of 
salvation, the divine aim of that ciyxAecove, Which was to cease on its attain- 
ment ; Christ is the end of the law. Comp. ver. 22, where iva x.7.2. corre- 
sponds with the ¢ic «.7.A. here. — néAdovoay] is placed first,® because with 
that earlier situation is contrasted the subsequent future state of things which 
was throughout the object of its aim.’ — droxadvg6qvac] for so long as there 
was not yet belief in Christ, faith had not yet made its appearance : it was 
still an element of life hidden in the counsel of God, which became revealed 
as ahistorical phenomenon, when Christ had come and the gospel—the 


1 Augustine and many others, also Hof- 
mann, Reithmayr, Buhl. 

2 Comp. his Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 59. 

8 Raphel, Polyb. p. 518, has understood 
ovykAciery eis in a Similar way to Hofmann, 
and finely paraphrased it : ‘ eo necessitatis 
quem adigere, ut ad fidem tanquam sacram 
ancoram confugere cogatur,” ‘‘to drive 
with such a degree of necessity, that it is 
compelled to betake itself to faith as a 
sacred anchor.’’ Comp. Bengel. 


4See Raphel, and Schweighiuser, Lex. 
Polyb. p. 571 f. 

5 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 545. 

6 Rom. xi. ; Acts xxviii. 25 ff. 

™ Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Koppe, 
Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Usteri, and 
others. 

§Paui did not write els 7. miot. T. WEAA. 
amrOK. 

® Comp. on Rom. viii. 18. 
1 Pet. v. 1, 2 Mace. viii. 11. 


Similarly in 


154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

preaching of faith (vv. 2, 5)—was made known. ’Aroxad. cannot be under- 
stood as the infinitive of design and, according to the reading ovyxexrecopévor, 
as belonging to the latter word,’ because in the religious-historical connec- 
tion of the text it must signify the final appearance of the blessing of salva- 
tion, which hitherto as a pvorjpiov, ‘‘ mystery,” had been unknown (Rom. xvi. 
25). Besides, Paul would thus have written very far from clearly; he must at 
least have placed the infinitive before ovyxexAzcc. 

Ver. 24. Accordingly the law has become our paedagogue unto Christ. Asa 
paedagogue* has his wards in guidance and training for the aim of their 
future majority, so the law has taken us into a guidance and training, 
of which Christ was the aim, that is, of which the aim was that we in 
due time should no longer be under the law, but should belong to 
Christ. This munus paedagogicum, ‘‘ pedagogical office,” however, result- 
ing from ver. 28, did not consist in the restriction of sin,* or in the circum- 
stance that the law ‘‘ab inhonestis minarum asperitate deterreret,” ‘“‘by the 
asperity of its threats deterred from dishonorable things,” “—views de- 
cidedly inconsistent with the aim expressed in ver. 19, and with the tenor 
of ver. 28, which by no means expresses the idea of preparatory improve- 
ment ; but it consisted in this, that the law prepared those belonging to it 
for the future reception of Christian salvation (justification by faith) in such 
a manner that, by virtue of the principle of sin which it excited, it contin- 
ually brought about and promoted transgressions (ver. 19 ; Rom. vii. 5 ff.), 
thereby held the people in moral bondage (in the gpovpd, ver. 23), and by 
producing at the same time the acknowledgment of sin (Rom. iii. 20) 
powerfully brought home to the heart (Rom, vii. 24) the sense of guilt and 
of the need of redemption from the divine wrath (Rom. iv. 15),—a redemp- 
tion which, with our natural moral impotence, was not possible by means 
of the law itself (Rom. iii. 19 f., viii. 3). Luther appropriately remarks : 
‘*Lex enim ad gratiam praeparat, dum peccatum revelat et auget, humilians 
superbos ad auxilium Christi desiderandum,” ‘‘ For the law prepares for 
grace, while it reveals and amplifies sin, humbling the proud to desire 
Christ’s aid.” ° Under this paedagogal discipline man finally cries out : 
tadainwpoc éyo, Rom, vii. 24. —ei¢ Xprotév] not wsgue ad Christum, ‘‘ until 
Christ,” ° but designating the end aimed at, as is shown by iva éx 7. dex. 5 
comp. ver. 23. Chrysostom and his successors,’ Erasmus, Zeger, Elsner, and 
others, refer eic to the idea that the law rpod¢ tov Xpiordv, b¢ éotiv 6 dwWdoxaroc, 
argye, ‘led to Christ, who is the teacher,” just as the paedagogi had to con- 


1 Matthias: ‘‘in order to become mani- 
fest, as those who were under the ban with 
a view to the future faith.” 


Comp. also Simplic. pict. 10, p. 116, ed. 
Schweigh. ; and see Grotius on our passage. 
4 Winer, and most expositors, including de 


2 See on 1 Cor. iy. 15. 

3 Comp. Liban. D. xxy. p. 576 CG: mpotov 
Hév VoUw Tatdaywynoomey av’T@V THY mpoaipe- 
OW, ws av THY amd TOU VOmoV Cynulav avadvomevat 
gwOpovetv avaykagwyra, ‘at first by means 
of the law we will moderate their course of 
life, that, avoiding the penalty from the 
law, they may be compelled to be discreet.” 


Wette, Baur, Hofmann, Reithmayr, but not 
Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler. 

5 See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 287 f. ; Hol- 
sten, z. Huang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 315 f. 

® Castalio, J. Cappellus, Morus, Rosen- 
miiller, Riickert, Matthias. 

7 See Suicer, Zhes. II. pp. 421, 544. 


CHAP. TM., 2d, 26: 155 


duct the boys to the schools and gymnasia.* But this introduces the idea of 
Christ as a teacher, which is foreign to the passage ; He is conceived of as 
reconciler (iva éx rior. duc.) [See Note LIL, p. 162. ]— ive éx riotewg SixatwO. | is 
the divine destination, which the paedagogic function of the law was to ful- 
filin those who were subject to it. The emphatic éx zictewe (by faith, not 
by the law) shows how erroneously the paedagogic eflicacy of the law is re- 
ferred to the restriction of sin. 

Ver. 25. No longer dependent on the dove in ver. 24. Paul now desires 
to unfold the beautiful picture of the salvation which had come. — oixéri] This 
is the breathing afresh of freedom. On the matter itself, comp. Rom. vi. 
14, x. 4, vii. 25.— id raday.] without article : under tutorial power, 

Ver. 26. The argumentative emphasis is laid first on ravrec, and then, not 
on vioi,—which expositors have been wont to understand in the pregnant 
sense : sons of full age, free, in contrast to the zai implied in radaywyéc,” 
—hbut on vioi Oc0%, because in this Ccov the vioi actually has its express and 
full definition, and therefore to supply the defining idea is quite unwarrant- 
able. All of you are sons of God by means of faith ;* but where all without 
exception and without distinction are sons of God, and are so through 
faith, none can be, like Israel before the appearance of faith, under the 
dominion of the law, because the new state of life, that of faith, is 
something altogether different,—namely, fellowship with the vidrn¢ of 
Christ (ver. 27). To be a son of God through faith, and to be under 
the old tutorial training, are contradictory relations, one of which ex- 
cludes the other, The higher, and in fact perfect relation,* excludes 
the lower. —zdvrec] Paul now speaks in the second person, because what 
is said in ver. 26 f. held good, not of the Jewish Christians alone (of 
whom he previously spoke in the jirst person), but of all Christians in 
general as such, consequently of all his readers whom he now singles 
out for address ; whether they may have previously been Jews or Gen- 
tiles, now they are sons of God. Wofmann supposes that Paul meant by 
the second person his Gevtile-Christian readers, and wished to employ what 
he says of them in proof of his assertion respecting those who had been pre- 
viously subject to the law. In this case he must, in order to be intelligible, 
have used some such words as kai yap byeic 20vn mavre¢ K.7.A. According to 
the expression in the second person used without any limitation, the Gala- 
tian Christians must have considered themselves addressed as a whole with- 
out distinction, —a view clearly confirmed to them by the éc0 (ver. 27), and 
the "Iovdaioc vide "EAAyv comp. with rdvre¢ ipeic (ver. 28). Where, on the 
other hand, Paul is thinking of the Galatians as Gentile Christians (so far 
as the majority of them actually were so), this may be simply gathered from 


1 Plat. Zys. p. 208 C; Dem. 318. 12; Ael. 
VE TA Pal 


TAaVTES Yap, 
4Theodoret aptly remarks: ¢éeée tav 


2See, against this view, Wieseler and 
Matthias. 

3 dca 7. miot. stands third in the order of 
emphasis, but has not the main stress laid 
upon it in contradistinction to the wavtes 
(Hofmann), as if it stood immediately after 


TETLOTEVKOTWY TO TEAELOY* TL Yap TEAELOTEPOV 
Tav viav xpymarigovtwy @eod, ** He showed 
that which is complete in those who have 
believed ; for what is more complete than 
sons enjoying communion with God?” 


156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

the context (iv. 8). —év Xpior} "Iyjoot] belongs to rictewc. According to 
the construction zorevery év tii,’ 7 rioti év Xpisto is fides in Christo reposita, 
the faith resting in Christ ; the words being correctly, in point of grammar, 
combined so as to form one idea.* But Usteri, Schott, Hofmann, Wieseler, 
Ewald, Matthias, Reithmayr (Estius also pronouncing it allowable), join év 
Xp. ’I. with vioi Ocov éore, of which it is alleged to be the modal definition ; 
specially explaining the sense, either as ‘‘ utpote Christo prorsus addicti” 
(Schott), or of the ‘‘znelusion in Christ” (Hofmann), or as assigning the od- 
jective ground of the sonship, which has its subjective ground in éa rt. zior. 
(Wieseler ; comp. Hofmann and Buhl). But all these elements are already 
obviously involved in dva 7. zicr. itself, so that év X.’I., as parallel to dua r. x., 
would be simply superfluous and awkward ; whereas, connected with 6a 
7. 7., it expresses the emphatic and indeed solemn completeness of this idea 
(comp. ver. 22), in accordance with the great thought of the sentence, 
coming in all the more forcibly at the end, as previously in the case of 276i 
(ver, 23) and éAotonc (ver. 25) the ziort¢ was mentioned without its object, 
and the latter was left to be understood as a matter of course. 

Ver. 27. The words just used, viol Oecd éore, expressing what the readers 
as a body are through faith in Christ, are now confirmed by the mention of 
the origin of this relation ; and the ground on which the relation is based 
is, that Christ is the Son of God.* —éco:] corresponding to the emphatic 
mavrec in ver. 26. — eic Xpiorév] in relation to Christ,‘ so that ye who belong 
to Christ through baptism become partakers in fellowship of life with Him. 
— Xpiorov évedicache} laying aside the figure, according to the connection : 
Ye have appropriated the same peculiar state of life, that is, the very same 
specific relation to God, in which Christ stands ; consequently, as He is the 
Son of God, ye have likewise entered into the sonship of God, namely by 
means of the veda viobeciac received at baptism.’ Observe, besides, how 
baptism necessarily presupposes the werdvora (Acts ii. 38) and faith.*° The 
entrance on the state of being included in Christ, as Hofmann from the point 
of view of civa év X. explains the expression, is likewise tantamount to the 
obtaining a share in the sonship of God. The figure, derived from the 
putting on of a characteristic dress,’ is familiar both to the Greek authors 


{See Mark i, 15; Eph. i. 13; 1xex. Ps: 
Ixxviii. 22; Jer. xii. 6; Clem. 1 Cor. 22: 7 ev 


if you have put on Christ and Christ is the 
Son of God, by the same garment you are 


Xpiote miotis, Ignat. ad Philad. 8: év re 
evayyeAlw ov TLTTEVW, 

2 See Winer, p. 128; Fritzsche, ad Marc. 
p. 63, a@ Rom. I. p. 195 f. Comp. Eph. i. 1, 
15; Col. i.4; 1 Tim. iii. 13. 

3 Comp. Chrysostom: et 0 Xpioros vids Tod 
@eod, ov S€ adroy evdeducar Tov vior Exwy ev 
EQUT® Kal Tpos aVTOY OmoLwOeEis Eis LLAY TUYyEr- 
€lavkat play idéav nxOys, “‘ If Christ is the 
Son of God and you have put on Him, hay- 
ing the Son in himself, you also, being made 
like Him, have been brought into one family 
and one image.’’ Luther, 1519: “ Si autem 
Christum induistis, Christus autem filius Dei, 
et vos codem indumento filti Dei estis,” ‘But 


sons of God.” 

4 See on Rom. vi. 3. 

5 iy. 5-7; Rom. viii. 15; 1 Cor, vi. 113 Wis, 
iii. 5. 

® Comp. Neander, II. p. 778 f.; Messner, 
Lehre der Ap. p. 279. 

7 Looking at the very general occurrence 
of the figure, and seeing that the context 
contains no indication whatever of any 
special reference, we must entirely reject 
any historical or ritual references. See the 
many discussions of the earlier expositors in 
Wolf. By some the figure was looked upon 
as referring to heathen customs (as Ben- 
gel: ‘‘Christus nobis est,’ ‘* Christ is to us 


CHAP. III., 28. 157 


and the Rabbins.’ In the latter passage the putting on of Christ is enjoined, 
but it is here represented as having taken place; for in that passage it is con- 
ceived under the ethical, but here under the primary dogmatic, point of 
view.’ Usteri incorrectly desires to find in the évdtec@ar Xpiorév of our pas- 
sage, not the entering into the sonship of God, but the putting on of the new 
man (Col. iii. 9-11), having especial reference to the thought of the univer- 
salistic, purely human element, in which all the religious differences which 
have hitherto separated men from one another are done away. This view 
is inconsistent with the word actually used (Xpiorév), and with the context 
(viot Oeov, ver. 26). Nevertheless, Wieseler has in substance supported the 
view of Usteri, objecting to our interpretation that viol Ocov expresses a son- 
ship of God different from that of Christ, who was begotten of God. It is 
true that Christians are the sons of God only by adoption (viofecia) ; but just 
by means of this new relation entered upon in baptism, they have morally 
and legally entered into the like state of life with the only-begotten Son, 
and have become, although only His brethren by adoption, still His brethren. * 
This is sufficient to justify the conception of having put on Christ, wherein 
the metaphysical element of difference subsists, as a matter of course, but is 
left out of view. On the legal aspect of the relation, comp. ver. 29 ; Rom. 
vill. 17. — Moreover, that the formula év Xpior@ eivac is not to be explained 
from the idea Xpiordv évdboaca, see in Fritzsche, ad Rom. Il. p. 82. Just 
as little, however, is the converse course to be adopted (Hofmann), because 
both elvac éy ta and évdtoacbai twa or te are frequently used in the N. T. 
and out of it, without any correlation of the two ideas necessarily existing. 
The two stand independently side by side, although in point of fact it is 
correct that whosoever és év Xpior has put on Christ through baptism. 

Ver. 28. After ye have thus put on Christ, the distinctions of your 
various relations of: life apart from Christianity have vanished ; from the 
standpoint of this new condition they have no further validity, any more 
than if they were not in existence. — é] is an abbreviated form for éveort 
(1 Cor. vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 11 ; Jas. i. 17), not the adverbially used preposition,‘ 
as Winer, Usteri, Wieseler, and others assume, with the accent thrown 
back. Against this view it is decisive, that very frequently é and év are 
used together,® and yet there is no éori added, whereby the #1: shows that it 
stands independently as a compound word = éveore or éveror.® Translate : 
there is not, namely, in this state of things when ye have all put on Christ, 
a Jew, ete. The iweic in vv. 28, 29 shows that the individualizing form of 


the toga virilis’’), by others to Jewish cus- its emblematic representation. 


toms (‘it applies to the putting on of the 1 Schoettgen, Hor. p. 572. See on Rom. 
robes of the high priest at his appointment,” xiii. 14. 

Deyling, Odss. III. p. 480, ed. 2), by others 2 Comp. Luther, 1538. 

to Christian customs (‘it applies to the 3 Comp. Rom. viii. 29. 

putting on of new—at a later time white— 4Hom. Od. vii. 96; Schaefer, ad Bos, 
garments after baptism,” Beza). Thelatter p. 51; Kiihner, II. § 618. 

idea is especially to be set aside, because 51 Cor. vi. 5, and frequently in Greek 


the custom concerned cannot be shown to authors, as Xen. Anad. vy. 3. 11; Herod. vii. 
have existed in apostolic times ; at any rate, 112. 

it has only originated from the N. T. idea 6 Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 591. 

of the putting on of the new man, and is 


158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


statement, applying to the readers, is still continued ; therefore Hofmann is 
wrong, although consistent with his erroneous interpretation of the second 
person in ver. 26 f., intaking éw as general: ‘‘in Christ,” or ‘now since 
Jaith has come,” on the ground that év iviv is not added (which was obvious 
of itself from the context).*—dpoev kai 6740] Comp. Matt. xix. 4. The re- 
lation here is conceived otherwise than in the previous oik . . . ovda, namely : 
there are not male and female, two sexes ; so that the negative is not to be 
supplied after xai.* — mdvre¢ yap x.t.A.] Proof from the relation cancelling 
these distinctions, which is now constituted : For ye all are one, ye form a 
single moral person ; so that now those distinctions of individuals outside 
of Christianity appear as non-existent, completely merged in that higher 
unity to which ye are all raised in virtue of your fellowship of life with 
Christ. This is the el¢ xawdc avOpwroc, Eph. ii. 15. Observe the emphatic 
mavrec as in ver. 26, and éco. in ver. 27. — év Xpiot@ "Ijoov| Definition of eic¢ 
éore. They are one, namely, not absolutely, but in the definite sense of their 
relation as Christians, inasmuch as this unity is causally dependent on Christ, 
to whom they all belong and live (ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 15f. ; Rom. xiv. 8). ° 
Ver. 29. But by your thus belonging to Christ ye are also Abrahams 
posterity : for Christ is indeed the orépua’AB, ‘‘ seed of Abraham” (ver. 16), 
and, since ye have entered into the relation ef Christ, ye must consequently 
have a share in the same state, and must likewise be Abraham’s orépua, 
“seed ;” with which in conformity to the promise is combined the result, that 
ye are heirs, that is, that ye, just like heirs who have come into the possession 
of the property belonging to them, have as your own the salvation of the 
Messianic kingdom promised to Abraham and his seed (the realization of 
which is impending). — dé] drawing a further inference, so that, after the ex- 
planation contained in ver. 28, i dé tuei¢ Xprorod in point of fact resumes the 
Xpiordv évedioacbe of ver. 27. The emphatic ieic has as its background of 
contrast the natural descendants of Abraham, who as such do not belong to 
Christ and therefore are not Abraham’s ozépua.— ov ’ASp.] correlative to 
Xpiorov, and emphatically prefixed. Ye are Abraham’s seed, because Christ is 
so (ver. 16), whose position has become yours (ver. 27).*— Kaz’ érayy.]| for 





TH ABp. éhpAOnoav ai emayyediae Kal TO oréppare avtov, ver. 16. It is 
true that this orépya in ver. 16 is Christ: but Christians have put on Christ 
(ver. 27), and are altogether one in Christ (ver. 28) ; thus the kar érayy. (in 
ccnformity with promise) finds its justification. But the emphasis is laid, not 
on car’ éxayy. as contrasted with kava véyor,* or with another order of heirs, ® 
or with natural inheritance (Reithmayr), but on «Aypovduor, which forms the 
link of connection with the matter that follows in ch. iv., and both here and 
at iv. 7 constitutes the important key-stone of the argument. This KAypovdyor 
is the triumph of the whole, accompanied with the seal of divine certainty by 
means of kar’ érayy. ; the two together forming the final death-blow to the 
Judaistic opponents, which comes in all the more forcibly without kai (see 


1Astothe idea generally, comp. Col. iii. 4 Comp. Theodoret and Theophylact. 
1a Roms xsi (Or cxale de. 5 Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Wieseler. 
2 Bornemann, ad Act. xv. 1. 6 Hofmann. 


3 See Col. iii. 11. 


NOTES. 159 


critical notes). The alleged contrast was obvious of itself long before in 
the words orépua tov ’ABp. (comp. ver. 18). The article was no more 
requisite than in ver. 18. — KAnpovduor] The connection with the sequel 
shows, that the sense of heir is intended here. Tov ’Ap. is not, however, 
to be again supplied to «Ayporduor, as might be inferred from orépua ; but, 
without supplying a genitive of the person inherited from, we have to think 
of the kAypovouia of the Messianic salvation. Against the supplying of row 
"ABp. we may decisively urge not only the sequel, in which nothing what- 
ever is said of any inheriting from Abraham, but also kav’ éxrayy. For if 
Paul had wished to express the idea that Christians as the children of 
Abraham were also the heirs of Abraham, the kar’ érayy. would have been in- 
appropriate ; because the promise (ver. 16) had announced the heirship of the 
Messianic kingdom to Abraham and his seed, but had not announced this 
heirship in the first instance to Abraham, and then announced to his seed in 
their turn that they should be Abraham’s heirs. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XLIT. Ver. 1. év dpiv. 


On the other hand, the interpretation of év tviv as ‘‘in your hearts,” is just 
as inconsistent with kar’ 69%aAuovc, and there seems to be no satisfactory 
ground for deserting the ordinary classical meaning of mpoypadew as palam 
scribere (Sieffert). ‘‘Not only does this meaning harmonize best with the promi- 
nent and purely local kar’ 6¢9aAudve (compare kar’ duuata, Soph. Antig. 756), 
but also best illustrates the peculiar and suggestive é¢3dcxavev, which thus gains 
great force and point, ‘who could have bewitched you by his gaze, when you 
had only to fix your eyes on Christ to escape the fascination.” Comp. Numb. 
xxi. 9’ (Ellicott). 


XLII. Ver. 4. eiye. 


Sieffert notes that the ciye may have either a positive or contingent force, 
like the Latin siquidem, viz., either ‘‘as indeed” or ‘‘if indeed.’’ The connec- 
tion (ver. 5) requires the latter, not as indicating a possibility of improvement, 
but the possibility that the readers had not yet fully reached the dreaded 
extreme. Eadie quotes the Syriac as: ‘“‘ And I would that it were vain.”’ 


XLIV. Ver. 6. ehoyio9n ait ic dtxacoovvny. 


“‘The apostle is speaking of faith, not as it is a quality inhering in us (for in 
that respect it does not justify, since it is obedience to only one commandment, 
is imperfect and long already due), but as it apprehends the redemption of 
Christ. . . . Scripture not only asserts that faith is accounted to us for right- 
eousness, but also that Christ ‘is our righteousness,’ Jer. xxiii. 6, xxxili. 16; 
in Him ‘we have righteousness,’ Is. xlv. 24; ‘who of God is made unto us 
righteousness,’ 1 Cor. i. 30; ‘in Him we are made the righteousness of God,’ 


1 Comp. Rom. viii. 17. 


160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


2 Cor. vy. 21. Since, therefore, Christ and faith are said to be at the same time 
our righteousness, the consequence is that faith is and is called our righteous- 
ness, because if apprehends Christ’s righteousness and makes it ours” (Ger- 
hard’s Loci Theologici, vii. 262). 


XLY. Ver. 8. évevdoynfjoovrat. 


Sieffert argues at length that Meyer’s statement, instead of identifying the 
blessing with justification, should have simply named the latter as the neces- 
sary precondition of the former, which with Bahr he regards as ‘‘ the life com- 
municated by the spirit.” The two are, however, so closely joined that Meyer 
really affirms no substantial error, 


XLVI. Ver. 16. t@ oréppate. 


Better Eadie: ‘‘The apostle’s argument is that the singular orépya signifies 
what the plural orépuara could not have suggested. . . . It is true that orépua 
may have a plural signification, as in Rom. iv. 18, ix.7. . . . In the promise 
made to Abraham, however, the singular term is not a collective unity, but has 
an impersonal sense which no plural form could have borne. The singular 
form thus gives ground to the interpretation which he advances. The Septua- 
gint had already given a similar personal meaning to orépwa — atc cov tHojoet 
KedaAnv, Gen. 11.15. That seed is Christ—not Jesus in individual humanity, 
but the Messiah so promised.’”’ Lightfoot : ‘*He is not laying stress on the 
particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a col- 
lective term is employed, where ra réxva or dv’ axéyova, for instance, might have 
been substituted.” 


XLVIL. Ver.19. rév rapaBacewv yup. 


We see no inconsistency in such combination. The argument of the 
apostle is: The law, far from being a means whereby the Spirit and His gracious 
comfort are received (ver. 2), is, on the contrary, simply one whereby the abyss 
of sin within man becomes manifest in outward acts. Man’s state is sin. The 
law becomes the occasion for the expression of this state in transgression. So 
the law is both the revealer of sin (original) and the oceasion for sin (actual). 
Its influence is to bring the deep-seated corruption to the surface, and evoke 
the symptoms that show its real nature. The rod held before the serpent at 
once provokes its bite, and reveals its nature. This is hinted at even by the 
remark of Meyer: ‘‘ Previously there were sins, but no transgressions.”’ 


XLVIII. Ver. 19. de’ dyyé? ov. 


Keil and Delitzsch (commentary on Deuteronomy), on the contrary, find this 
in the Hebrew text: ‘‘The Lord came not only from Sinai, but from heaven, 
‘ out of holy myriads,’ i.e., out of the midst of the thousands of holy angels who 
surround His throne (1 Kings xxii. 19; Job i.6; Dan. vii. 10), and who are 
introduced in Gen. xxviii. 12 as His holy servants, and in Gen. xxxii. 2, 3, as 
the hosts of God, and form the assembly of the holy ones around His throne 
(Ps. Ixxxix. 6, 8; cf. Ps. lxviii. 18 ; Zech. xiv. 5; Matt. xxvi. 53; Heb. xii. 22 ; 
Rey. v. 11, vii. 11).” 


NOTES. 161 


XLIX. Ver. 19. év yeep? pecirov. 


We cannot appreciate the distinction made by de Wette, Sieffert, and others 
between the promise and the gospel, but recall the definition of Melanchthon 
in the Apology : ‘‘The gospel, which is properly the promise of the remis- 
sion of sins’’ (Mueller, p. 94, § 43). With this exception, we regard the argu- 
ment conclusive that the apostle is actually setting forth the superiority of the 
gospel or promise to the law. The ministration of angels, indeed, exhibited 
the glory of the law, which is also made manifest by Heb. xii, 18-29, wherein 
its inferiority is nevertheless set forth. Sieffert’s answer to Meyer is briefly : 
1. With reference to the mention of angels, itis in general correct that all 
manifestations and activity of angels are regarded as majestic and glorifying, 
yet that this is only the case because purely natural occurrences and purely 
natural modes of working form the antithesis, as contrasted with which the 
appearance of angels is an indication of divine working. 2. The word peoirye, 
applied, it is true, to Christ in 1 Tim, ii. 5, and which even in profane writers 
varies greatly in its meaning, has not, when used with respect to Christ, the 
specific force of one who interposes between two contracting parties. In this 
connection, as not in 1 Tim. ii. 5, the weakness and not the glory of the law is 
indicated by the peoiryc. The difference in Christ’s case is dependent on the 
person that becomes the pesityc. 3. It is shown that this position is not 
in violation of theargument. The entire passage, chap. iii. 6, iv. 7, is intended 
to prove the incorrectness of the Jewish position that the law stands in direct 
and positive relations to the divine plan of salvation, but, on the contrary, 
that it has only a negative relation and preparatory validity, that it does not 
correspond to the absolute, but only to the conditioned willof God. This is 
what is stated in concise and pointed form in ver. 20. A glorying of the law 
here would be highly out of place. 

Lightfoot really solves the difficulty involved when he finds in the peoitn¢ 
an argument for our Lord’s divinity, ‘‘ otherwise he would have been a media- 
tor in the same sense as’’ (here) ‘‘ Moses was a mediator.” 


L. Ver. 20. Entire verse. 


The interpretation of Sieffert not only deserves attention, but seems very ap- 
plicable: ‘‘ The law is inferior to the promise, as its mediator, Moses, belongs 
not to God alone, but at the same time to Him and the people of Israel. Ac- 
cording to the entire connection, this can mean only the same as already vv. 15- 
18 was indicated, that the law as a contract made between God and the people, 
whose validity depends upon what is done by the people of Israel, corresponds 
only to the conditioned will of God, but cannot be, as the autonomously given 
promise, an adequate expression of God’s absolute will, of His eternally valid 
decree of salvation.” SoSanday: ‘‘ Therefore, the promise is not a contract ; 
and resting on God it is indefeasible.” The argument of the succeeding verse 
then becomes : “‘ If the law given through a mediator like this belongs not to 
God alone, and is not an adequate expression of the absolute will of God to 
save, is then perhaps the law contrary to the promises of God?” (Sieffert). 


LI. Ver. 22. é000n vouoc. 


Not “on account of faith in Christ,’’ wm des Glaubens an Christum willen, but 
‘fon account of Christ through faith,’’ um Christus willen durch den Glauben, 


11 


162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


propter Christum perfidem (Augsburg Confession, Art. iv.), faith being only the 
instrumental and Christ the meritorious cause. 


LIT. Ver. 24. wardaywydc Ev ypiorov. 


Yet even though this specific application be surrendered, the generic re- 
mains, viz., that the care of the pedagogue ends when that of a higher power 
begins. ‘‘ Horace notes asa peculiar advantage of his own, that his father 
himself had taken the place of pedagogue to him, Sat., Lib. L., vi. 81, 82” 
(Sanday). If, however, the application of reconciliation is by the teaching of 
the gospel (Rom. x. 8, 9, 14), is there any inconsistency in regarding Christ in 
this verse as both teacher and reconciler ? 


CHAP. IY. 163 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 6. jucr] Elz. has iuov, against 8 A BC D* F G, and many of the Fathers, 
after the foregoing éoré.— Ver. 7. xAypovouoc] Elz. and Scholz add Ocov dca 
Xpiorovd. There are many variations, among which kAyp. dca cov has most ex- 
ternal attestation, viz., A B C* 8*, Copt. Vulg. Boern. Clem, Bas. Cyr. Didym. 
Ambr. Ambrosiast. Pel. ; so Lachm., Schott, Tisch. The Recepta kAnp. Oc0t 
da Xpicrov is defended by ©. F. :A. Fritzsche in Friteschiorum Opusce. p. 148, and 
Reiche ; whilst Rinck, Zucubr. crit. p. 175, and Usteri, hold only xAyp. dia Xpuic- 
vou as genuine, following Marian.** Jerome (238, lect. 19, have kAnp. dca 
"Ijootv Xpicrov) ; Griesh. and Riick,, however, would read merely «Aypovoyoc (so 
178 alone). Theophyl. Dial. c. Maced., and two min., have from Rom. viii. 17 
kAnp. fev Ocov, ovykAnp. 6& Xptorov. Amidst this great diversity, the much pre- 
ponderating attestation of xAnp. did Ocovd (in favor of which F G also range them- 
selves with kAyp. dua Oedv) is decisive ; so that the Recepta must be regarded as 
having arisen from a gloss, and the mere «Anpovduoc, which has almost no at- 
testation, as resulting froma clerical omission of dvd Ocov.— Ver. 8. dices uy] So 
ABC D* E 8, min., vss., Ath. Nyss. Bas. Cyr. Ambr. Jer. Approved by 
Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. Matth. Scholz, Schott, 
Reiche, have 27) dice. Opposed to this is the decisive weight of the evidence 
just given, and the internal ground, that in toic yy dvcer ober Oeoic might easily 
be found the entire non-existence of the heathen gods, which could not but be 
more satisfactory than our reading, leaving as this does to the gods reality in 
general, and only denying them actual divinity. The same cause probably in- 
duced the omission of ¢icer in K, 117, Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in Ambr. Ir. 
Victorin. Ambrosiast.— Ver. 14. reipaoudy pov tov] So Elz. Matth. Scholz, 
Tisch. [1859], Reiche, following D*** K L, many min., and a few vss. and 
Fathers. But A B D* F G &*, 17, 39, 67*, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Jer. Aug. Am- 
brosiast. Sedul., have we:paoyodv buov [C**, same, with addition of rév]. Recom- 
mended by Mill. and Griesb., adopted by Lachm [Tisch. 1872]. And justly ; 
vuov not being understood, was either expunged (so C*?, min., Syr. Erp. Arm. 
Bas. Theophyl.; approved by Winer, Riick., Schott, Fritzsche), or amended by 
pov Tov. Comp. Wieseler.—Ver. 15. ric otv] Grot., Lachm., Riick., Usteri, Ewald, 
Hofm, [Tisch. 1872] read rot odv, which is indeed attested by ABCFG &, 
min., Syr. Arr. Syr. p. (in the margin), Arm. Copt. Vulg. Boern. Dam. Jer. Pel., 
but by the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia (7d otv tic évravfa avri 
Tov TOV 6 wakap.), Theodoret, Theophyl., and Oecum., is pretty well shown to 
be an ancient interpretation. — The 7» which follows is omitted inABCL®& 
[P] min., Aeth. Damasc. Theophyl. Theodoret. ms. Expunged by Lachm. and 
Scholz, also Tisch. Rightly. According as tic was understood either correctly 
as expressing quality, or as equivalent to od, either 7v (DE K et al.) or éore (115, 
Sedul. Jer.), or even viv (122, Erp.), was supplied. In Oecum. the reading jv 
is combined with the explanation row by recourse to the gloss: viv yap ovy 6pa 
avrév, — dv] before édux, [N** D** E K] is wanting in A BC D* FG 8, 17, 47, 


164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Dam. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. : a grammatical addition. — Ver. 17. é«- 
kAeicar bude] Elz. has éxxA nude, whichis found only ina very few min., was intro- 
duced into the text by Beza,! and must be looked upon as an unneces- 
sary conjecture. — Ver. 18. 70 GjAovofa:] A C and four min., Damase. have 
(nAovefac merely (so Lachm.), while BS, and 17, 23, 39, Aeth. Vulg. Jer. 
Ambrosiast., read (7A0v00e. The latter is an ancient error in transcribing, which 
involved the suppression of the article. The correct form ¢yAcicAa: was re- 
stored, but the article, which seemed superfluous, was not recovered. — Ver. 21. 
axoverte] DEF G, 10, 31, 80, Vuig. It. Sahid. Arm., and Fathers, have dva- 
ywooxere. Anancient interpretation. — Ver. 24. dvo] Elz. has aj dito [according 
to®* and min. ], against decisive testimony [8*** A BC D E F G, etc.]. — Ver. 
25. “Ayap] is wantingin CFG 8, 17, 115, Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Boern. Cyr. 
Epiph. Damasc. Or. int. Ambrosiast. Jer. Aug. Pel. Sedul. Beda. Deleted by 
Lachm. [Bentley, Bengel] and Wieseler, condemned also by Hofmann, who refers 
[Fritzsche, Lightfoot and Tisch. 1872] "Ayap to the Syriac Church, although it 
is attested by AB D EK LP, and most min., Chrys., and others. But instead 
of yap, AB D E, 37, 73, 80, lect. 40, Copt. Cyr. (once), have dé. The juxtapo- 
sition of yap "Ayap led to the omission sometimes of the “Ayap and sometimes of 
the yap. After the latter was omitted, in a part of the witnesses the connection 
that was wanting was restored by dé ; just as in the case of several, mostly more 
recent authorities, instead of ydp after doviever, dé has crept in (so Elz.), be- 
cause the argument of the apostle was not understood. — cvoroyei dé] D* F G, 
Vulg. It. Goth., read 7 ovoro.yoica ; D*, however, not having the article. A 
gloss, in order to exhibit the reference to “Ayap in ver. 24. — Ver. 26. judv] Elz. 
reads ravtwv ynuov; Lachm. has bracketed zdavrwv. But it is wanting in 
BC* DE FG &, some min, most vss., and many Fathers. Deleted by Tisch.; 
defended by Reiche. Anamplifying addition [from Rom. iv. 16] involuntarily 
occasioned by the recollection of iii. 26, 28, and the thought of the multitude of 
the réava (ver. 27). — Ver. 28. jweic . . . éouév) Lachm. and Schott, also Tisch., 
read jyeic éore, following B D* F G, some min., Sahid. Aeth. Iv. Victorin. Ambr. 
Tychon. Ambrosiast. Justly ; the first person was introduced on account of vv. 
26 and 31. — Ver. 30. «Anpovouhon] Lach. [Tisch. 1872] reads cAnpovounoe:, follow- 
ing BD E 8& and Theophylact; from the LXX.— Ver. 31. dpa] A C, 23, 57, 
Copt. Cyr. Damase. Jer. Aug., have jueic dé; B D* E 8, 67**, Cyr. Marcion, 
read 6.6. The latter is (with Lachm. and Tisch.) to be preferred ; for ijueie dé 
adeAdot is evidently a mechanical repetition of ver. 28 (Rec.), and apa is too 
feebly attested (F G, Theodoret, have apa ody). 


Contents.—Further discussion of the xAnpovéduovre eiva: (iii. 29), as a priv- 
ilege which could not have been introduced before Christ, while the period 
of nonage lasted, but was jirst introduced by means of Christ and Christian- 
ity at the time appointed by God, when the earlier servile relation was 
changed into that of sonship (vv. 1-7). After Paul has expressed his sur- 
prise at the apostasy of his readers, and his anxiety lest he may have labored 
among them in vain (vv. 8-11), he entreats them to become like to him, and 
supports this entreaty by a sorrowful remembrance of the abounding love 
which they had manifested to him on his first visit, but which appeared to 


1 Beza himself allows that duas stands in Latin), but considers that the sense requires 
all the codd. (in the fifth edition he adds: eas. 


GHAR + 0.5: 1, 165 
have been converted into enmity (vv. 12-16). He warns them against the 
selfish zeal with which the pseudo-apostles courted them (ver. 17), while at 
the same time he reproves their fickleness (ver. 18), and expresses the wish 
that he were now present with them, in order to regain, by an altered mode 
of speaking to them, their lost confidence (vv. 18-20). Lastly, he refutes 
the tendency to legalism from the law itself, namely, by an allegorical inter- 
pretation of the account that Abraham had two sons, one by the bond- 
woman, and one by the free woman (vy. 21-80), and then lays down the 
proposition that Christians are children of the free woman, which forms the 
groundwork of the exhortations and warnings that follow in ch. v. (ver. 31). 

Ver. 1. Aéyw dé] Comp. ii. 17, v. 16; Rom. xv. 8; 1 Cor. 1.12: now T 
mean, in reference to this «Aypovouta brought in through Christ, the idea of 
which I have now more exactly to illustrate to you as for the first time real- 
ized in Christ. This illustration is derived by Paul from a comparison of 
the pre-Christian period to the period of the servile, slave-like child- 
hood of the heir-apparent. — é@’ dcov ypdvov] As in Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. 
Vii. 39. —6 kAypovduoc] The article as in 6 pecirye, iii. 20: the heir in any 
given case. KAyp. is, however, to be conceived here, as in Matt. xxi. 38, as 
the heir of the father’s goods, who is not yet in actual personal possession, 
but de jure—the heir apparent, whose father is still alive. So Cameron, 
Neubour (Bibl. Brem. v. p. 40), Wolf, Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, and 
many others, including Winer, Schott, Wieseler, Reithmayr. But Riickert, 
Studer (in Usteri), Olshausen (undecided), Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and most of the 
older expositors, conceive the heir as one whose father is dead. Incorrectly, 
on account of ver. 2 ; for the duration of the guardianship (in which sense 
ind émitpdrove, ver. 2, must then be understood) could not have been 
determined by the will of the father,’ but would have depended on the law.? 
Hofmann thinks, indeed, that the point whether the father was bound by a 
law of n.ajority is not taken into account, but only the fact, that it is the 
father himself who has made arrangements respecting his heir. But in this 
view the rpofecuia, as prescribed by the father, would be entirely illusory ; 
the notice would be absurd, because the zpofesuia would be not rod rarpée, 
but tov véuov. —vArwoc] still in boyhood.* ‘‘Imberbis juvenis tandem 
custode remoto gaudet equis,” ‘‘ the beardless youth, his guardian at length 
removed, delights in horses.” [Horace, Ars. Poetica, 161, 162], etc., Virg. 
Aen. ix. 649. [See Note LIII., p. 212.] Quite in opposition to the context, 
Chrysostom and Oecumenius refer it to mental immaturity. — oidév diagéper 
dobdov| because he is not swt juris.’ — Kipioc ravtwv bv] although he is lord of 
all, namely, de jure, in eventum, ‘‘by right,” ‘‘eventually,” as the heir- 


1 Baumgarten-Crusius, indeed, appealsto the death of the father, dependent on the 


the proof adduced by Géttling (Gesch. d. 
Ron. Staatsverf. pp. 109, 517), that Gaius, I. 
55. 65, 189, comp. Caes. Bell. Gall. vi. 19, 
mentions the existence of a higher grade of 
the patria potestas among the Galatians. 
But in this way it is by no means shown 
that the time of the majority was, after 


settlement which he had previously made. 

2 Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 121. 

3 Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. 

4Rom. ii. 20; Hom. JZ. y. 406, xvi. 46, 
et al. 

5 Comp. Liban. in Chiis, p. 11 D, in Wet- 
stein. 


166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

apparent of all the father’s goods. Consequently neither this nor the pre- 
ceding point is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the father is still 
alive.! Comp. Luke xvi. 31.— The kAypovduog vyrvo¢ represents, not the 
people of Israel ; ® but, according to the connection with iii. 29 (comp. iv. 3), 
the Christians as a body, regarded in their earlier pre-Christian condition. 
Tn this condition, whether Jewish or Gentile, they were the heir-apparent, 
according to the idea of the divine predestination (Rom. viii. 28 ff.; Eph. 
i. 11; John xi. 52), in virtue of which they were ordained to be the Isracl 
of God (vi. 16), the true orépua of Abraham. 

Ver. 2. ’Exirporoc means here not guardian,* as it is explained by all who 
look upon the father as dead,* but overseer, governor, and that without any 
more special definition ;° it is neither therefore to be taken ° as synonymous 
with oixovéuog (which would give a double designation without ground for 
it), nor as equivalent to tadaywyd¢ (which would be an arbitrary limitation). 
The term denotes any one, to whose governorship the boy is assigned by the 
father in the arrangement which has been made of the family affairs ; and 
from this category are then specially singled out the oixovéuor, the superior 
slaves appointed as managers of the household and property (Luke xvi. 1), on 
whom the vjziog was dependent in respect to money and other outward wants. 
—aypt tHe xpobecuiac tov rarpéc| Until the appointed time of the father, until 
the term, which the father has fixed upon for releasing his son from this 
state of dependence. 7 zpofecuia, tempus praestitutum, does not occur else 
where in the N. T., but is frequent in classical authors.” 

Ver. 3. ‘Hueic] embraces Christians generally, the Jewish and Gentile 
Christians together. In favor of this view we may decisively urge, (1) the 
sense of ororyeia tov Kéouov (see below) ; (2) ver. 5, where the first: iva applies 
to the Jewish Christians, but the second, reverting to the first person, applies 
to Christians generally, because the address to the readers which follows in 
ver. 6 represents these as a whole, and not merely the Jewish Christians 
among them, as included in the preceding iva rv violeciav aroAaBaper ; 
lastly, (8) that the ofxér: and zére, said of the Galatians in vv. 7 and 8, point 
back to the state of slavery of the jueic in ver. 3. Therefore jueic is not to 
be understood as referring either merely to the Jewish Christians ; ° or—as Hof- 
mann in consistency with his erroneous reference of iii. 29 to the Gentile 
readers holds—to ‘‘the Old Testament church of God, which has now passed 
over into the New Testament church ;” or to the Jewish Christians pre-em- 
inently ;° or, lastly, even to the Gentile Christians alone." — ére jjuev vgrcor] 
characterizes, in terms of the prevailing comparison, the pre-Christian con- 


1 As Hofmann and others have objected. 

2 Wieseler. 

3 dphavav éxitporos, Plat. Legg. p. 766 C; 
Dem. 988. 2; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 40; 2 Mace. xi. 
J, xiii. 2, xiv. 2; comp. also the rabbinical 
DIDINVIDN in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 743 f. 

4 See, however, on ver. 1. 

5 Herod. i. 108; Pind. Ol. i. 171; Dem. 
819.17: Xen. Oec. 21.9; and very frequent- 
ly in classical authors. 


6 Asin Matt. xx. 8; Luke viii. 3. 

7See Wetstein; also Jacobs, Ach. Tat. 
p. 440. 

® Chrysostom and most expositors, in- 
cluding Grotius, Estius, Morus, Flatt, 
Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Wieseler. 

9 Koppe, Riickert, Matthies, Olshausen. 
10 Augustine. 


CHAP, IV., 3. 167 
dition, which, in relation to the Christian condition of the same persons, 
was their age of boyhood. Elsewhere Paul has represented the condition of 
the Christians vefore the Parousia, in comparison with their state after the 
Parousia, as a time of boyhood.’— io ra aroyeia tov Kéopov juev dedova. | 
corresponds, as application, to the oidév dvagéper dobAov . . . aAAa bd EriTpé- 
move éo7t Kal oikov. The word orovyetov—which denotes primarily a stake or 
peg standing in a row, then a letter of the alphabet,’ then, like apyf, element* 
—means here at all events element,* which signification has developed itself 
from the idea of a letter, inasmuch as a word is a series of the letters which 
form it.° In itself, however, it might be used either in the physical sense of 
elementary substances, which Plato ° calls aiso yévy,* as it frequently occurs in 


Greek authors applied to the so-called four elements,® or in the intellectual 


sense of rudimenta, ‘‘ rudiments,” jirst principles.* In the latter sense the 
verb ororyecovv was used to signify the instruction given to catechumens.” In 
the physical sense—in which it is used by later Greek authors for designat- 
ing the stars! —it was understood by most of the Fathers: either as by 
Augustine,” who thought of the Gentile adoration of the heavenly bodies 
and of other nature-worship ; or as by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, 
Pelagius, who referred it to the Jewish observance of new moons, feasts, 
and Sabbaths, which was regulated by the course of the moon and sun. 
So, combining the Gentile and Jewish cultus, Hilgenfeld, p. 66,1? who 
ascribes to the apostle the heterogeneous idea of ‘‘ sidereal powers of heaven,” 
that is, of the stars as powerful animated beings ; '* and Caspari,'’® in whose 
view Paul is supposed to have placed Mosaism in the category of star and 
nature worship ; and likewise Reithmayr, although without such extrava- 


gances. 


1 See 1 Cor. xiii. 11; Eph. iv. 13. 

2 Plat. Theaet. p. 202 E; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 
1; Arist. Poet. 20.2; Lucian, Jud. voc. 12. 

8 See Rudolph on OQcell. p. 402 ff. 

4 A point on which almost all expositors 
agree. Yet Luther, 1519, following the 
precedent of Tertull. c. Marc. vy. 4, adopted 
the signification of detters; ‘* pro ipsis literis 
legis, quibus lex constat. . . . Mundi autem 
vocat, quod sint de iis rebus, quae in mun- 
do sunt,” ‘‘for the very letters of the law, 
in which the law consists. . . Moreover, 
he says ‘of the world,’ because they are of 
the things which are in the world.”’ So also 
in 1524, and at least to a similar effect in 
1538. More recently Michaelis has also ex- 
plained it as Zefters ; holding that the acts 
of the Levitical law were intended, be- 
cause, taken as a whole, they had preached 
the gospel by anticipation. Similarly Nés- 
selt, Opusc. II. p. 209, takes orotxyeta as 
signs (Arist. Hecl. 652, where it is used for 
the shadow of the plate on the sun-dial ; 
comp. Lucian, Gall. 9, Cronos. 17), holding 
that the Jewish ceremonies are thus named 
because they prefigured the future Chris- 


But because the expression is applicable neither merely to the cir- 


tian worship. These views are all errone- 
ous, because the expression ortovxeta rT. 
kogpov applies also to Gentile habits. 

5 Walz, Rhetor. VI. p. 110. i 

6 Ruhnk. ad Tim p. 283. 

72 Pet. iii. 10, 12; Wisd. vil. 17, xix. 18; 
4Mace. xii. 13; Plat. Tim. p. 48 B, 56 B, Polit. 
p. 278 C; Philo, de Opif. m. p. 7, 11, Cherub. 
p. 162; Clem. Hom. x. 9. 

§ Comp. Suidas, s.v. 


®° Heb. v. 12; Plut. de pueror. educ. 163. 


Isocr. p. 18 A; Nicol. ap. Stob. xiv. 7. 31; 
see Wetstein. 

10 Constitt. ap. vi. 18. 1, vii. 25.2. Comp. 
our expression the A, B, C of an art or 
science. Comp. generally, Schaubach, Com- 
mentat. quid artorxeta Tod Koonov in N. T. 
sibi velint, Meining. 1862. 

11 Diog. L. vi. 102; Man. iv. 624; Eustath. 
Od. p. 1671, 53. 

12 De civ. D. iv. 11. 


13 Comp. in his Zeitschr. 1858, p. 99 ; 1866,- 


p. 314. 
14 Comp. Baur and Holsten. 
15 In the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff. 


168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUl, TO THE GALATIANS, 

cumstances of the heathen, nor merely to those of the Jewish, cultus (sec, on 
the contrary, vv. 8-10),—to the latter of which it isin the physical sense not 
at all suitable, for the Jewish celebrations of days and the like were by no 
means a star-worship or other (possibly unconscious) worship of nature, 
under which man would have been in bondage, but were an imperfect 
worship of God—and because the context suggests nothing else than the 
contrast between the imperfect and the perfect religion, as well as also on 
account of the correlation to v#ro, the physical sense of orovyeiov is altogether 
to be rejected.’ Besides, it would be difficult to perceive why Paul, if he 
had thought of the stars, should not have written rov oipavod instead of row 
«éouov. Hence Jerome,’ Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and most 
of the later expositors, though with various modifications, have correctly 
adhered to the sense rudimenta disciplinae, ‘‘ rudiments of discipline,” which 
alone corresponds to the notion of the vyridéry¢ (for the age of childhood does 
not get beyond jirst principles). The oroyeia tov xécpov are the elements of 
non-Christian humanity (kécpog ; see 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 32, ef al.), that is, the 
elementary things, the immature beginnings of religion, which occupy the 
minds of those who are still without the pale of Christianity. Not having 
attained to the perfect religion, the xécyoc has still to do with the religious 
elementary state, to which it is in bondage, as in the position of a servant. 
Rudiments of this sort are expressly mentioned in ver. 10 ; hence we must 
understand the expression, not in a onesided fashion as the elementary 
knowledge, the beginnings of religious perception in the non-Christian world *— 
with which neither the idea of the relation as slavery, nor the inclusion of 
the Jewish and Gentile worships under one category would harmonize—but 
as the rudimenta ritualia, the ceremonial character of Judaism and heathenism,* 


sensuous, perishable things, of which this 
earthly koopos, as to its fundamental ele- 
ments, consists. But why, then, the re- 
striction ‘‘as to its fundamental elenents’’ ? 


1 With strange arbitrariness Schulthess 
(Engelwelt, pp. 118, 129) has recently antici- 
pated Hilgenfeld in re-asserting this sense ; 
holding that the sfars are meant, but that 


Paulis glancing at the Jewish ministry of _ And the idea of perishableness is im- 
angels (Job xxxviii.7(!)). Morethoroughly ported. Ewald understands by it the 


Schneckenburger (in the ¢theol. Jahrb. 1848, 
p. 445 ff.) has again defended the physical 
reference (elements of the visible world). 
Comp. Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 323. 
In this interpretation the law must be ex- 
cepted (as is done by Holsten) from the 
orotxeta,—an exception which is forbidden 
by the whole connection with ch. iii., and 
is also inconsistent with the concrete in- 
stances in vv. 8and 10; see above. Nean- 
der also—who, however, introduces the 
idea of the sensuous forms of religion—would 
retain the physical reference, which is 
decidedly assumed by Lipsius (Rechiferti- 
gungsl. p. 83), who specially commends the 
interpretation of Hilgenfeld ; whilst Mess- 
ner (Lehre d. Ap. p. 226) agrees in substance 
with Neander, holding that SeSovA. td Ta 
oToLxeta Tov Koomov is “the dependence of 
the religious consciousness on the earthly, 


elements of the world, into the whole of 
which life must be brought through the 
spirit, and unity and meaning through 
God; it comprehends the Jewish obsery- 
ances as to meats and days, as well as the 
heathen star-worship. Yet how unsuited 
to popular apprehension (as pertaining to 
natural philosophy) would the whole ex- 
pression thus be ! an enigmatic designation 
for the heathen worship, and an unsuitable 
one for the Jewish cultus, which is based 
on divine precept. As to the way in which 
Hofmann understands the material ele- 
ments of the world, see the sequel. 

2 Also tuwvés in Theophylact, and Genna- 
dius in Oecumenius, p. 747 D. 

3 Comp. Kienlen, in the Strassb. Bettr. Tl. 
p. 133 ff. 

4 Comp. Schaubach, /.c. p. 9 ff. 


CHAP. IV., 3. 169 
with which, however, is also combined the corresponding imperfection of 
religious knowledge.’ Against the explanation, ‘‘ religiows elementary things 
of the world,” the objection has been made, that this idea is suitable neither 
to Judaism, in so far as the latter was a divine revelation, nor even to 
heathenism, which, according to Paul, is something foreign to religion ; see 
especially Neander. But the latter part of the objection is erroneous (Acts 
Xvii. 22, 23); and the former part is disposed of when—in the light of the 
pretensions put forth by the apostle’s opponents, which were chiefly based 
on the ceremonial side of the law—we take into account the relative charac- 
ter of the idea rwdimenta, ‘‘rudiments,” according to which Judaism, when 
compared with Christianity as the absolute religion, may, although a 
divine institution, yet be included under the notion of crovyeia, because 
destined only for the v#ror and serving a transitory propaedeutic purpose.” 
Most of the older expositors, as also Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette (with many various and mistaken interpretations of kécyoc ; see Wolf 
and Riickert én loc.), have referred the expression merely to Judaism,* whilst 
Koppe and Schott only allow the analogous nature of ethnicism to be included 
incidentally ; but, besides what has been above remarked on jeic, these views 
are at variance with the idea of rot xécyov. This idea is, at all events, too 
wide to suit the law, which was given to the people of Israel only ; whether 
it be taken as applying to mankind generally (de Wette, Wieseler), or to 
the unbelieving portion of mankind, in contrast to the ayo: ina Christian 
sense.* Certainly it might appear unwise (see especially Wieseler) that Paul 
should have placed Judaism and heathenism in one category. But, in point 
of fact, he has to deal with Judaistic seductions occurring in churches chiefly 
Gentile-Christian : he might therefore, with the view of more effectually 
warning them and putting them to shame, so designate the condition of 
bondage to which by these seductions they were induced to revert, as to 
comprehend it in the same category with the heathen cultus, from the 
bondage of which they had been not long before liberated by Christianity. 
According to Hofmann, the orovyeia r. kécov are contrasted with the promise 
given to Abraham of the kAzpovouia kécuov, Rom. iv. 18. He supposes that 
out of the destruction of the material elements of the present world (2 Pet. iii. 
10) the oixovuuévy pé2AAod’ca (Heb. ii. 5) will arise, and that this will derive its 
nature and character from the Spirit, the communication of which is the 
beginning of the fulfilment of that promise. Israel, however, has been in 
bondage under the material elements of which the present world is composed, 
inasmuch as in what it did and what it left undone it was subject to stringent 


1 Comp. Col. ii. 8, 20. 

2Comp. Baur, Paulus, II. p. 222, ed. 2; 
Weiss, 0161. Theol. p. 289; also Ritschl, ait- 
kath. K. p. 73. 

3 The /aw ‘‘as a means of training calcu- 


trary expedient of taking the expression 
to apply to the merely external and literal 
way of apprehending the O. T., which con- 
fines itself merely to the actions, without 
considering the idea involved in them. 


lated only for the age of childhood,” de 
Wette, who is followed by Wieseler. 

4 Olshausen, feeling the difficulty which 
thé idea of «écuos puts in the way of the 
reference to Judaism, hits upon the arbi- 


““This was the procedure of the Judaists, 
and in this shape the Old Test. appeared 
not merely as the beginning of divine life, 
but also as given oyer to the world,” ete. 


170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

laws, which had reference to the world in its existing materiality ; it had to 
conform itself to the things of this corporeal world, whilst the promise had 
been made to it that it should be lord of all things. Apart from the errone- 
ous application of ijueic (see above), every essential point in this interpreta- 
tion is gratuitously introduced. In particular, the contrast on which it is 
based—namely, that of the new world of the aiévy which is to come—is 
utterly foreign not only to the whole context, but even to the words them- 
selves ; for, if Paul had had this contrast in view, he must, in order not to 
leave his readers wholly without a hint of it, have at least added a rotrov' 
to rov xécuov.* It is, moreover, incorrect to discover in the ororyeia the op- 
posite of the future world, so far as the latter has its nature from the Spirit. 
The world of the aidv wéAAwv, as the new heaven and the new earth (2 Pet. 
ili. 13), must likewise be corporeally material, and must have its crocyeia, 
although the oyjua of the old world will have passed away.* — juev dedovdwm. | 
may be taken either together, or separately ; the latter is to be preferred, 
because it corresponds more emphatically to the ovdéy dradéper dodAov (ver. 1) 
and the id éxitpérove éote (in ver. 2) : we were enslaved ones. 

Ver. 4. "Ore dé 7AGe 70 rAHjpwua tov xpdvov] corresponds to the dype rig 
mpoflecu. tov matp. (ver. 2). The time appointed by God, which was to 
elapse until the appearance of Christ (6 ypévoc)—consequently the pre- 
Messianic period—is conceived as a measure which was not yet full, so long 
as this period had not wholly elapsed. Hence 1d tAgjpaya tov yxpdvov is : 
that moment of time, through which the measure of time just mentioned became 
Full.? — On what historical conditions Paul conceived that counsel as to the 
fulness of time to depend ° cannot, after his view of the destination of the 
law which intervened between the promise and its fulfilment (iii. 19, 24 ; 
Rom. v. 20), remain doubtful. Theophylact takes in substance the right 
The need had reached its height. Comp. Chrysostom, ad Eph. 1. 
10: Gre padduota EueAAov ardAdvofa, TéTe diecdMycav, ‘*‘ when they were just 
about to be destroyed, they were saved.” Without due ground Baur per- 
ceives here’ the idea that Christianity proceeded from a principle inherent 
in humanity, namely, from the advance of the mind to the freedom of self- 
consciousness. — éfaréorevev| He sent forth from Himself. Ver. 6; Acts vii. 
12, xi. 22, xvii. 14, e¢ al. ; Dem. 251. 5; Polyb. iii. 11. 1, iv. 26. 2, iv. 30. 
1, and frequently. The expression presupposes the idea of the personal 
pre-existence of Christ,* and therewith at the same time His personal divine 
nature (Rom. viii. 3, 32 ; Phil. ii. 6 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9) ; so that in reality the 
apostle’s idea coincides with the Johannean 6 2dyoc qv pode 7. Ocdv and Oed¢ 





view. 


11 Cor. vii. 31, 1. 20, iii. 19; Eph. ii. 2. 

2? He does not add rovrov in Col. ii. 8, 20, 
just because the contrast suggested by 
Hofmann was far from his thoughts. 

3 Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 31. 

* Comp. Gen. xxix. 21; Marki. 15 ; Luke 
Xxi. 24; John vii. 8; Joseph. Antz. vi. 4. 1, 
et al. 

5 Comp. on Eph. i. 10, and Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. II. p. 473. 

®Theophylact : ore mav etSos Kakias SucfeA- 


Ootca H dicts 7 avOpwrivn edeiTo Oepazetas, 
““ when human nature, having experienced 
every form of evil, needed medical treat- 
ment.” Baur: ‘“ when mankind was ripe 
for it;’ de Wette: ‘‘conditioned by the 
need of certain preparations, or by the ne- 
cessity of the religious development of man- 
kind which had reached a certain point.” 

7 See his newt. Theol. p. 173. 

8 See Ribiger, Christol. Paul. p. 16; Lechler, 
apost. Zeit. p. 50; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 316 ff. 


CHAP. IV., 4. 171 
Hv 6 Adyoc, but is not to be reduced to the notion of ‘‘ the ideal first man,” ? 
whose human birth, on account of His pre-existence, is conceived by Paul 
as not without a certain Docetism.? This remark also applies against the 
view of Beyschlag referring it to the pre-existent prototype of man,* in con- 
nection with which the Messianic name of Son is supposed to be carried 
back from the historical to the pre-historical sphere. This is at variance 
with the express designation, as tpwrétoKkosg méone Kricewce (Col. 1. 15), 
which likewise forbids us to say, with Hofmann : ‘‘ By the very fact, that 
God has sent Him forth from Himself into the world, He is the Son of God.” 
According to Col. i. 15, He is, even before the creation, in the relation of 
Son to the Father, as begotten by Him,—a relation, therefore, which could 
not be dependent on the subsequent sending forth, or given for the first 
time along with the latter. —yevduevov éx yvvackdc| so that He was born of a 
woman ; the relation of the aorist participle is the same as in Phil. ii. 7 f. 
The reading yevvdéuevov—attested only by min., and otherwise feebly, al- 
though recommended by Erasmus, adopted by Matthias, and defended by 
Rinck—is a correct interpretation, which also occurs at Rom. i. 3, in Codd. 
mentioned by Augustine. Who this yvv# was, every reader knew ; we must 
not, however, say with Schott, following many of the older expositors, ‘‘ de 
virgine sponsa dicitur,” ‘‘it is said ‘of the betrothed virgin ;’”° but comp. 
Job xiv. 1; Matt. xi. 11. Noris anything peculiar to be found in é« ;° on the ° 
contrary, é« is quite the wsual preposition to express the being born.” This 
very fact, that Christ, although the Son of God, whom God had sent forth 
from Himself, entered into this life as man (Rom. v. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21; 
Acts xvii. 31) and—just as an ordinary man enters into temporal life—as 
one born of woman, Paul wishes to bring into prominence as the mode of 
carrying out the divine counsel.* The supernatural generation which pre- 
ceded the natural birth was not here in question ; its mention would even 
have been at variance with the connection which points to Christ’s humilia- 
tion : it is not, however, anywhere else expressly mentioned by the apostle, 
or certainly indicated as a consequence involved in his system (Weiss).° 
Nor is it to be inferred from é£aréorevAev, in connection with the designation 
of Him who was sent forth as the Son ;’° because, while it is assumed that as 
the Son of God He was already, before His incarnation, with God (6 Aéyoc jv 
mpoc Tov Gedv), the mode of His incarnation—how He was born xara capa é« 
orépuatoc Aavid 1—is not defined — yevduevov bird véuov| Luther : ‘‘made 








1 Hilgenfeld. 

2 See, on the contrary, Rom. i. 3; indeed, 
Paul throughout is the very opposite of 
Docetism. 

3 Christol. d. N. T. p. 220 ff. 

4 As to the meaning, but not as to the 
tense ; see Phot. Qu. Amphil. 90. 

5 Comp. Augustine, Serm.16 de temp. ; 
Jerome, and others. 

6 “ex semine mairis . .. non viri et mu- 
lieris coitu,”’ ‘ of the seed of the mother. . .not 
by the union of man and woman,” Calvin; 
comp. Cornelius 4 Lapide, Estius, Calovius, 


and others; Theophylact, following Basil, 
Jerome, and others: &« ris ovclias avTys Toya 
AaBovra, 

7 John iii. 6; Matt. i. 16; 1 Pet. i. 22, et al.; 
3 Esr. iv. 16; 4 Mace. xiv. 14; frequently 
used also in classical authors with yy- 
veobar, 

8 Comp. Rom. viii. 3; Phil. ii. 7. 

* Comp. on Rom. i. 3. 

10 Hofmann, comp. also his Schrifibew. 
II. 1, p. 84. 

11 Rom. i. 
Acts ii. 30. 


S comp, 1X. oy) 2) ims ieee 


172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


under the law ;” and so most expositors : legi subjectum, ‘subject to the 
law.” But it is arbitrary to take yevdu. here in another sense than before ;* and 
the vivid emphasis of the twice-used yerdu. is thus lost. Hence Michaelis, 
Koppe, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Lechler, rightly understand yevdu. as na- 
tum. Thus also, in fact, ‘‘ the beginning of an eiva: bd véuov” (Hofmann) is 
expressed, and expressed indeed more definitely. Paul desires to represent the 
birth of the Son of God not merely as an ordinary human birth, but also as 
an ordinary Jewish birth ;? and he therefore says : ‘* bern of a woman, born 
under the law,” so that He was subjected to circumcision and to all other ordi- 
nances of the law, like any other Jewish child. But God caused His Son 
to be born as an ordinary man and as an ordinary Israelite, because other- 
wise He could not have undergone death—either at all, or as One cursed by 
the law (iii. 13), which did not apply to those who were not Jews (Rom. i. 
12)—and could not have rendered the curse of the law of none effect as 
regards those who were its subjects. or this reason, and not merely on 
account of the contrast to rdv vidv airov,4 Paul has added yevdu. éx yuv., yev. 
i7d véu., as a characteristic description of the humiliation into which God 
allowed His Son to enter. See the sequel. — With respect, moreover, to 
the perfect obedience of Christ to the law, it was a preliminary condition 
necessary for the redeeming power of His death (because otherwise the 
curse of the law would have affected Him even on His own account) ; but it 
is not that which is imputed for righteousness; on the contrary, this is purely 
faith in the itacthprov, ‘‘propitiation,” of His death.° The doctrine of 
the Formula Concordiae as to the imputation of the obedientia Christi activa’ 
is not borne out by the exegetical proof, of which our passage is alleged to 
form part ; but the atoning death of Christ is the culminating point of His 
obedience towards God (Rom. v. 19 ; Phil. ii. 8; 2 Cor. v. 21) [See Note 
LIV., p. 212 seq.], without the perfection of which He could not have accom- 
plished the atonement ; and the form which this obedicnce assumed in 
Him, in so far as He was subject to the daw, must have been that of legal 
obedience.’ 

Ver. 5. The object for which God sent forth His Son, and sent Him in- 
deed yevdu. éx yuvair., yevou. b7d véuov. — Tove bro vduov] The Israelites are 
thus designated in systematic correspondence to the previous yerdu. ix véuov.® 
— é£ayopdcy] Namely, as follows from rove id véuov, from the dominion of 
the law, vv. 1-8 (in which its curse, iii. 11, is included), and that through 
His death, iii. 13. Erasmus well says: ‘‘dato pretio assereret in liberta- 
tem,” ‘‘ As the price had been given, he would claim for liberty.” — iva rip 
viobec. at0Ad3.] The aim of this redemption ; for of this negative benefit the 
viodecia was the immediate positive consequence. But Paul could not again 
express himself in the third person, because the viofecia had been imparted to 





1 Viewed by itself, yiver@ac td with the 3 Comp. Rom. viii. 3 f. ; Heb. iii. 14 f. 
accusative, in the sense to be subject to, is, in a 4 Schott. 
linguistic point of view, quite as correct 5 See on iii. 18; Rom. iv. 5, 24, v. 6 ff., 
(1 Mace. x. 88; Thue. i. 110.1; Lucian. Addic. et al. 
23) as with the dative (Herod. vii. 11; Xen. 6p. 685. 
Anab. vii. 2. 3, vii. 7. 82; Thue. vil. 64. 2). 7 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 130. 


2 Comp. Heb. il. 14-17. 8 Comp. iii. 25, iv. 21, v. 18; Rom. vi. 14. 


CHAP.. IV:,. 6% 173 


the Gentiles also, whereas that redemption referred merely to the Jews ; but 
now both, Jews and Gentiles, after having attained the viofecia no longer izd 
Ta oToLxEla TOV KécuoV oav JedovdAwuévot (Ver. 3) : hence Paul, in the first person 
of the second sentence of purpose, speaks from the consciousness of the com- 
mon faith which embraced both the Jewish and the Gentile portions of the 
Christian body, not merely from the Jewish-Christian consciousness, as Hof- 
mann holds on account of éoré in ver. 6.’ —The viofecia is here, as it always is, 
adoption* — a meaning which is wrongly denied by Usteri, as the signification 
of the word allows no other interpretation, and the context requires no other. 
Previously not different from slaves (vv. 1-3), as they were in the state of vyz- 
téryc, believers have now entered into the entirely different legal relation to- 
wards God of their being adopted by Him as children.* The divine begetting 
(to which Hofmann refers) is a Johannean view ; see on John i. 12. In the 
divine economy of salvation the gracious gift of the viofecia was needed in or- 
der to attain the xAjpovouia ; while in the human economy, which serves as the 
figure, the heir-apparent becomes at length heir as a matter of course. 
Accordingly Paul has not given up (Wieseler) the figure on which ver. 1 ff. 
was based—a view at variance with the express application in ver. 3, and 
the uninterrupted continuation of the same in ver. 4 ; but he has merely 
had recourse to such a free modification in the application, as was suggested 
to him by the certainly partial difference between the real circumstances of 
the case and the figure set forth in vv. 1, 2.*—azo/4f.] not : that we might 
again receive, as is the meaning of azojau8. very often in Greek authors,°® 
and in Luke xv. 27 ; for before Christ men never possessed the viofecia here 
referred to (although the old theocratic adoption of the Jews was never lost, 
Rom. ix. 4) : hence Augustine and others are in error when they look back 
to the sonship that was lost in Adam. Nor must we assume® that, because 
the viofecia is promised, it is denoted by aroAdB. as dgeviouévn,—a sense 
which is often conveyed by the context in Greek authors and also in the 
N.T.,” but not here, because it is not the vio#ecia expressly, but the «Aypovopia,® 
which is the object of the promise. As little can we say, with Riickert and 
Schott, that the sonship is designated as fruit (aro = inde) of the work of 
redemption, or, with Wieseler, as fruit of the death of Jesus apprehended 
by faith : for while it certainly 7s so in point of fact, the verb could not 
lead to it without some more precise indication in the text than that given 
by the mere éfayop. On the contrary, azo/a8. simply denotes: to take at 
the hands of any one, to receive, as Luke xvi. 25 ; Plat. Legg. xii. p. 956 D, 
and very frequently in Greek authors. 

Ver. 6. A confirmation of the reality of this reception of sonship from the 
experience of the readers ; for the éoré, which, after the foregoing more gen- 
eral statement, now comes in with its individual application,’ does not refer 


1 Comp. the change of persons in iii. 14. and others, including Baumgarten-Crusius, 
2See on Eph. i.5; Rom. viii. 15; and Hofmann, and Reithmayr. 

Fritzsche, in loc. 7 Luke vi. 34, xxiii. 41; Rom. i. 27; Col. 
3 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 338 f. iii. 24; 2 John 8. 
4 Comp. ver. 7. 8 iii. 29, iv. 7. 
5 See especially Dem. 78. 3; 162. 17. *° Comp. iii. 26. 


§ With Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, 


174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

to the Galatians as Gentile Christians only,! any more than in ili. 26-29, — 
ére] is taken by most expositors, following the Vulgate, as guoniam.? And 
this interpretation*® is the most simple, natural, and correct ; the emphasis 
is laid on vio/, which is therefore placed at the end : but because ye are sons, 
God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son, etc. He would not have done this, 
if ye had not (through the vioGecia) been vioi ; thus the reception of the Spir- 
it is the experimental and practical divine testimony to the sonship. Jf not 
sons of God, ye would not be the recipients of the Spirit of His Son. The 
Spirit is the seal of the sonship, into which they had entered through faith— 
the divine oyueiov attesting and confirming it ; comp. Rom. viii. 16.4 Others*® 
take or as that, and treat it as an abbreviated mode of saying : ‘‘ But that 
ye are sons, és certain by this, that God has sent forth,” etc. This is unneces- 
sarily harsh, and without any similar instance in the N. T.; modes of 
expression like those in Winer, p. 575 f. and Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. 
p. 205, are different. Wieseler takes it as equivalent to eic éxeivo, bri: 7 
“as concerns the reality (éoré is to have the emphasis) of your state as sons.” 
But this would unnecessarily introduce into the vivid and direct character 
of these short sentences an element of dialectic reflection, which also appears 
in Matthias’ view. Hofmann handles this passage with extreme violence, 
asserting that dre dé is an elliptical protasis,—the completion of which is to 
be derived from the apodosis of the preceding period, from é£azéor. in ver. 
4 onward,—that éor7é vioi is apodosis, and that the following éfaréor. x.7.2. 
is the further result connected with it. In Hofmann’s view, Paul reminds 
his (Gentile) readers that they are for this reason sons, because God has done 
that act éaréoreAcv «.7.A. (ver. 4), and because He has done it in the way 
and with the design stated in ver.4f. This interpretation is at variance 
with linguistic usage, because the supposed elliptical use of érz dé does not 
anywhere occur, and the analogies in the use of ei dé, etc., which Hofmann 
adduces—some of them, however, only self-invented (as those from the epis- 
tles of the apostle, 2 Cor. ii. 2, vii. 12)—are heterogeneous. And how 
abruptly égaréor. 6 Ocd¢ «.7.A. would stand ! But, as regards the thought also, 
the interpretation is unsuitable ; for they are sons, etc., not because God 
has sent Christ, but because they have become believers in Him that was sent 
(iii. 26 ; John i. 12); it is not that fact itself, but their faith in it, which is 
the cause of their sonship and of their reception of the Spirit ; comp. ii. 14. 
To refer the sending of the Spirit to the event of Pentecost (as Hofmann does), 
by which God éaused His Spirit to initiate ‘‘a@ presence of a new kind” in the 
world, is entirely foreign to the connection.* — é&aréoreidev 6 Ocd¢ x.7.A.] for 
it is rd mvevua TO éx Ocov, 1 Cor. ii. 12. Observe the symmetry with éfaréor. 


4 See also Weiss, Bid/. Theol. p. 340. 

5 Theophylact, Ambrose, Pelagius, Koppe, 
Flatt, Riickert, Schott. 

6 Comp. iii. 11. 


1 Hofmann. 

2 Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Gro- 
tius, Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller, 
Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 


de Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, and 
others. 

3 On ort, because, at the beginning of the 
sentence, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 15; John xx. 29, 
xy. 19: 


7 See on Mark xvi. 14; John ii. 18, ix. 17, 
xi.51; xvi. 19 3.4) Cor: 1) 26eseiGormienlsy eae 
10. 

8 Comp., on the contrary, iii. 2, v. 14. 


CHAP. IV., 6. 175. 
k.7.2. in ver. 4. The phrase conveys, in point of form, the solemn expres- 
sion of the objective (ver. 4) and subjective (ver. 5) certainty of salvation, but, 
in a dogmatic point of view, the like personal relation of the Spirit, whom 
God has sent forth from Himself as He sent forth Christ. — 7d rvevya row 
viov aitov] So Paul designates the Holy Spirit, because he represents the re- 
ception of the Spirit as the proof of sonship ; for the Spirit of the Son can- 
not be given to any, who are of a different nature and are not also vioi Oeov.* 
But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, inasmuch as He is the divine 
principle of Christ’s self-communication, by whose dwelling and ruling in 
the heart Christ Himself? dwells and rules livingly, really, and efficaciously 
(ii. 20) in the children of God.* Comp. the Johannean discourses as to the 
self-revelation and the coming of Christ in the Paraclete. [See Note LV., 
p. 213. ]— 7juév] The change of persons arose involuntarily from the apostle’s 
own lively, experimental consciousness of this blessedness.*— xpdfov] The 
strong word expresses the matter as it was : with crying the deep fervor ex- 
cited by the Spirit broke forth into appeal to the Father.° The Spirit 
Himself is here represented as crying (it is different in Rom. /.c.), because 
the Spirit. is so completely the active author of the Abba-invocation, that 
the man who invokes appears only as the organ of the Spirit. Comp. the 
analogy of the opposite case—the crying of the unclean spirits (Mark i. 26, 
ix. 26). —’A{Ga 6 ratgp] The usual view taken by modern expositors,°® fol- 
lowing Erasmus and Beza, in this passage, as in Rom. viii. 15 and in Mark 
xiv. 36, is, that 6 xarjp is appended as an explanation of the Aramaic Abhi 
for Greek readers ;7 along with which stress is laid on the ‘‘ childlike sound” 
of the expression, so foreign to the Greek readers.* But see, against this 
view, on Rom. vill. 15. No; ’A@Ba, the address of Christ the Son of God 
to His Father, which had been heard times without number by the apostles 
and the first believers, had become so established and sacred in Christian pray- 
er that it had assumed the nature of a proper name, so that the deep and lively 
emotion of the consciousness of sonship could now superadd the appella- 
tive 6 raz ; and the use of the two in conjunction had gradually become so 
habitual,® that in Mark xiv. 36, by an hysteron proteron, they are placed even 
in the mouth of Christ. In opposition to this view, which is adopted by 
Hilgenfeld and Matthias, it has been objected by Fritzsche,” that 6 rarjp 
expresses exactly the same as the Aramaic 838, and that, if S38 had assumed 
the nature of a proper name, this name would very often have occurred 


1 Comp. Rom. viii. 9. 

2 Comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 17. 

3 See on Rom. viii. 9, 14. 

4 Comp. Rom. vii. 4. 

5 Comp. Rom. viii. 15; also Ps. xxii. 3, 
RV keKo.: Baruch iii. J; iv. 20: 

6 See the usual view of the ancient ex- 
positors, following Augustine, in Luther: 
“ Abba pater cur geminarit, cum grammat- 
ica ratio non appareat, placet vulgata ra- 
tio mysterii, quod idem Spiritus fidei sit Ju- 
daeorum et gentium, duorum populorum 
unius Dei,” ‘‘ As to why he cries ‘ Abba, 


Father,’ since a grammatical reason is 
not apparent, the ordinarily received ex- 
planation of the mystery is satisfactory, 
viz., that the spirit of faith of Jews and 
Gentiles is of the one God of two peoples, is 
the same.’? Comp. Calyin and Bengel. 

7So0 Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Rickert, Us- 
teri, Schott. 

§ Hofmann. 

® Bengel appropriately remarks, ‘‘haec 
tessera filiorum in Novo Testamento,” “‘ this 
pledge of sons in the New Testament.” 

10 @@ Rom. Il. p, 140. 


176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
in the N. T. and afterwards instead of Oed¢ ; and people would not have 
said constantly ’ABBa 6 ratyp, but also ’ABBa 6 Oedc. But these objections 
would only avail to confute our view, if it were maintained that ’ABBa had 
become in general a proper name of God (as was 17 in the O. T. and the 
other names of God), so that it would have been used at every kind of men- 
tion of God. The word is, however, to be regarded merely as a name used 
in prayer: only he who prayed addressed God by this name ; and just be- 
cause he was aware that this name was an original appellative and expressed 
the paternal character of God, he added the purely appellative correspond- 
ing term 6 rargp, and in doing so satisfied the fervor of his feeling of sonship. 
This remark applies also to Wieseler’s objection, that ’Afa could only have 
continued to be used as an appellative. It might become a name just as well 
as, for instance, Adonai, but with the consciousness still remaining of its 
appellative origin and import. Moreover, that the address in prayer ’ABBa 
6 xatip took its rise among the Greek Jewish-Christians, and first became 
habitual among them, is clear of itself on account of the Hebrew Abba. It 
is to be remarked also, that, according to the Rabbins, analogous emotional 
combinations of a Hebrew and a Greek address, which mean quite the same 
thing, were in use.’ Fritzsche’s view is, that the ’A8fa of prayer, which 
had through Christ’s use of it become sacred and habitual, was so frequent- 
ly explained on the part of the teachers of the Gentile Christians, as of Paul, 
by the addition of 6 rarjp, that it had become a dabit with these teachers to 
say, ABBa 6 xatyp. But this would be a mechanical explanation which, at 
least in the case of Paul, is @ priort not probable, and can least of all be as- 
sumed in a case where the fervid emotion of prayer? is exhibited. Paul 
would have very improperly allowed himself to be ruled by the custom. 
Wieseler contents himself with the strengthening of the idea by two synony- 
mous expressions, but this still fails to explain why rarep, marep,* or watep 
6 rat jyov,' is not said, just as Kipve, kipve, and the like. — On the nomina- 
tive with the article, as in apposition to the vocative, see Kriiger, § 45. 2. 7. 
Ver. 7. "Qore] Inference from vv. 5 and 6,—otxér.] no longer as in the 
pre-Christian condition, when thou wast in bondage to the crovyeia tov 
xdouwov. — i] The language, addressing every reader, not merely the Gentile 
readers (Hofmann), advances in its individualizing application.®— ei dé 
vide, kai KAnpovopoc| But if thou art ason (and not a slave, who does not in- 
herit from his master), thou art also an heir, as future possessor of the Mes- 
sianic salvation, and art so (not in any way through the law, but) through 
God (dia @cod ; see the critical notes), who, as a consequence of His adoption 
of thee as a son, has made thee also His heir. To Him thou art indebted 
for this ultimate blessing, to be attained by means of sonship. This dca 
Gcov cannot also apply to vid¢ (Hofmann), so that 4/7’ should include all the 





1 See Hrub. f. 58. 2: °VD VD (mi domine, 
mi xvpte, ““ my Lord’). Comp. Schemoth 
rabo. f. 140.2: “AN 77) YP: See Schoett- 
gen, Hor. p. 252. 

2 And let it be noticed, that in al the 
three passages where ’ABfa 0 wat7p occurs 


(Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv.6; Mark xiv. 86), the 
most fervid tone of prayer prevails. 

3 Comp. Soph. O. @. 1101. 

4 Comp. «vpte 6 KUptos Hav, PS. Vili. 2. 

5 Ver. 5, awoAdBwpev; ver. 6, €ore; ver. 7, 
ei. Comp. y. 26, vi. 1. 


CHAPS 1V., %. aur 
rest of the verse in one sentence. With ei dé a new sentence begins. Other- 
wise Paul must have written : aA2’ vidc, vide J2 Ov Kai KAnpovduoc. Riickert 


unjustly blames the apostle for having, in «i dé vidc, cai KAnp., departed from 
the right track of his thoughts, because in ver. 1 he had started at once 
from the idea of xAypovduoc. But in ver. 1 the apostle, in fact, has not 
started from the Messianic idea of KAnpovduoc, but from its lower analogue in 
civil life. With respect to the legal aspect of the conclusion itself, ei dé vide, 
kai KAyp.'—in which, by the way, the father is conceived as dividing the in- 
heritance during his lifetime,—the idea is not based on the Jewish law of 
inheritance,” according to which the (legitimately born) sons alone,* if there 
were such, —the first-born among these taking, according to Deut. xxi. 17, 
a double portion,—were, as a rule, intestate heirs. The apostle’s idea is 
founded on the intestate succession of the Roman law, with which Paul as 
a Roman citizen was acquainted, as in fact it was well known in the prov- 
inces and applied there as regarded Roman citizens.* According to the 
Roman law sons and daughters, whether born in marriage or adopted chil- 
dren (and Paul conceives Christians as belonging to the latter class), were 
intestate heirs. It is evident in itself, and from ili. 28, that vidc, which 
Paul used here on account of its correlation with dovjoc, does not, in ‘the 
popular mode of expression, exclude the female sex.° To assume a mere 
allusion to general human laws of succession (Wieseler) is not sufficient ; for 
Paul has very distinctly and clearly conceived and designated the vidryc¢ of 
the Christian as a relation of adoption, which presupposes for his conclusion 
as to the heirship a special legal reference, and not merely the general and 
vague correlation of the ideas of childship and heirship. The clear precision 
of his thought vouches for this, and it ought not to be evaded by declaring 
such a legal question even foolish (Hofmann),—a dogmatical judgment 
which is all the more precipitate, as the specific Johannean idea of the di- 
vine begetting of the children of God’? can by no means be found in the 
Pauline rvevua viofeciac.* Besides, viofecia is, and after all remains, nothing 
else than the quite definite legal idea of adoption, which separates the vioi 
eloxointoi OY Oeroi ® from those begotten or yvyacoi. 


1 Comp. Rom. viii. 17. 

2 So Grotius, who says: “‘Jure Hebr. filii 
tantum haeredes, sed sub illo nomine indi- 
eantur omnes fideles cujusque sint sexus,”’ 
‘““By the Hebrew law only the sons are 


jure aestimanda sit, in Fritzschior. Opusc. 
p. 143 ff. 

7 Comp. Weiss, dibl. Theol. p. 717 ff. 

® The adoption into the state of children 
takes place on God’s part along with justi- 


heirs ; but under this name all believers, 
whatever be their sex, are indicated.”” The 
fact that Christians are the adopted children 
of God, is decidedly opposed to this. 

3In Proy. xvii. 2 nothing is said of 
adoption. 

4See Keil, Archdol. II. § 142; Ewald, Al- 
terth. p. 238 f ; Saalschiitz, . R. p. 820f. 

5 Comp. also Fritzsche, Tholuck, and van 
Hengel, on Rom. viii. 17. ; 

6 On the whole of this subject, see C. F. A. 
Fritzsche, utrum Pauli argumentatio Rom. 
Vili. 17 ef Gal. iv. 7, Hebraeo an Romano 


by 


fication, and is on man’s part certain to the 
believing self-consciousness, to which the 
mvevma viodecias also attests it. Beyschlag 
(Christol. p. 222) wrongly holds that the 
communication of the Spirit is itself the 
viobecia, No, those who receive the Spirit 
are already believing, justified, and thereby 
vidderor, and obtain through the Spirit the 
testimony that they are vioc,—a testimony 
which agrees with that of their own con- 
sciousness, ouvpzpaptupet, Rom. viii. 16. See 
on Rom. viii. 15. 

9 Pollux, iii. 21. 


178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

Ver. 8. ’A2Ad] Nevertheless, how fearfully at variance is your present ret- 
rograde attitude with the fact of this divine deliverance from your previous 
lost condition ! This topic is dealt with down to ver. 11. Observe that 
az2a introduces the two corresponding relations rére wév and viv dé in con- 
junetion.' — rére] then ; reminds the reader of the past time, in which they 
were still dotAor (ver. 7). —ovx eiddrec Oedv] Cause of the édovreboate which 
follows. In the non-knowledge of God (for oix eidér. forms one idea) lies the 
fundamental essence of the heathenism, to which the apostle’s readers had 
mostly belonged.” As to the relation of the thought to Rom. i. 20 f., see 
on that passage. — édovdeboare] The aorist simply designates the state of 
bondage then existing as now at an end, without looking at its duration or de- 
velopment. * —- roic gicer uy odor Oeoic| to the gods, who by nature, however, are not 
so! For, in the apostle’s view, the realities which were worshipped by the 
heathen as gods, were not gods, but demons.‘ In his view, therefore, their 
nature was not divine, but at the same time not of mere mundane matter ;> it 
was demoniac,—a point which must have been well known to the Galatians 
from his oral instruction. — The negation denies subjectively, from the apos- 
tle’s view.® [See Note LVL. p. 213.] 

Ver. 9. Trdvrec Odv] After ye have known God through the preaching of 
the gospel. Olshausen’s opinion, that ¢eidére¢ denotes more the merely 
external knowledge that God is, while j7évre¢ signifies the inward essential 
cognition, is shown to be an arbitrary fancy by passages such as John vii. 
37, vill. 55 ; 2 Cor. v. 16. [See Note LVII., p. 213.] — uaArov dé] imo vero, a 
corrective climax," in order to give more startling prominence to the following 
zOc érotpépere K.7.A., aS Indicating not a mere falling away from the knowl- 
edge of God, but rather a guilty opposition to Him. — yrwobévrec id Ocoi] 
ajier ye have been known by God. This is the saving knowledge, of which on 
God’s part men become the objects, when He interests Himself on their be- 
half to deliver them. Into the erperience of having been thus graciously 
known by God the Galatians were brought by means of the divine work 
which had taken place in them, anticipating their own volition and endea- 
vor—the work of their calling, enlightenment, and conversion® [see Note 
LVIII., p. 214] ; so that they therefore, when they knew God, became in that 
very knowledge aware of their being known by God,—the one being implied in 
the other—through their divinely bestowed admission into the fellowship of 
Christ.° Hofmann desires the condition of the acceptance of grace to be men- 





1 But so, that the thought introduced by 
6é (ver. 9) is the main thought. Comp. 
Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 168. 

* Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5; Acts xvii. 23, 30, 
td. 

3 See Kiihner, II. p. 73 f. 

4 See on 1 Cor. x. 20. 


(following Chrysostom) rightly explains* 
tmpoaAnpbevtes Ud Ocod, “taken hold of by 
God.” Because of God’s knowing them 
they have known God; consequently not, 
“proprio Marte vel acumine sui ingenii 
vel industria, sed guia Deus misericordia 
sua eos praevenerit, quum nihil minus quam 


5 Ewald, comp. Wisd. xiii. 1 ff. 

§ Comp. 2 Chron. xiii. 9: éyévero eis iepéa 
TO LY OvTL Oca, 

7 Rom. viii. 34; Eph. v. 11; Jacobs, ad 
Ach. Tat. Tl. p. 955; Kiihner, ad@ Xen. Mem. 
ili. 13 6; Grimm, on Wisd. viii. 19. 

*Hence in point of fact Theophylact 


de ipso cogitarent,”’ ‘‘ by their own effort or 
the acuteness of their genius or by their 
industry, but because God by His mercy has 
anticipated them, while they were thinking 
less of nothing than of Him,”’ Calvin. 

® Comp. Ignat. ad@ Magnes. interpol, 1: &’ 
ov (through Christ) éyywre Oedv, waddAov dé bx" 


CIES EVs. Oe abi) 


tally supplied ; but this is arbitrary in itself,and is also incorrect, because those, 
who are the objects of God’s gracious knowledge, are already known to Him 
by means of His zpéyvwore as the credituri, ‘‘ those who are to believe,” and are 
ordained by Him to salvation (see on Rom. viii. 29f.). But the /iteral sense 
cognoscere is not to be altered either into approbare, amare,’ or into agnoscere 
suos ;® nor is it to be understood in the sense of Hophal : brought to the knowl!- 
edge ;* nor can we, with Olshausen, turn it into the being penetrated with 
the love wrought by God, which only follows upon the being known by 
God, 1 Cor. viii. 3. Lastly, there has been introduced, in a way entirely 
un-Pauline, the idea of the self-recognition of the Divine Spirit in us,‘ 
or of the consciousness of the identity of the human and the divine 
knowing (Hilgenfeld). On the deliberate change from the active to the 
passive, yvévrec, yvoobévrec, comp. Phil. ili. 12. Luther, moreover, appropri- 
ately remarks, ‘‘non zdeo cognoscuntur guia cognoscunt, sed contra quia 
cogniti sunt, ideo cognoscunt,” ‘‘It is not because they know that they are 
known ; but, on the contrary, they know because they have been known.” 
—réc] ‘‘interrogatio admirabunda,” ‘‘ wonderful question” (Bengel), as in 
ii, 12.— raw] does not mean backwards,’ as in Homer,® —a rendering 
opposed to the usage of the N. T. generally, and here in particular to the 
mraAw dveobev which follows ; it means iterwm, and refers to the fact that the 
readers had previously been already in bondage to the crayeia, namely, 
most of them as heathen. Now they turn indeed (ériorpégere, present tense, 
as in i. 6) to the Jewish ordinances ; but the heathen and Jewish elements’ 
are both included in the category of the crovyeia tov Kéopov,® so that Paul is 
logically correct in using the rad ; and the hypothesis of Nésselt,® that the 
greater part of the readers had been previously proselytes of the gate, is 
entirely superfluous, and indeed at variance with the description of the pre- 
Christian condition of the Galatians given in ver. 8; for according to ver. 
8, the great mass of them must have been purely heathen before their con- 
version, because there is no mention of any intermediate condition between 
tére and viv. According to Wieseler,” rd/uy is intended to point back to their 
conversion to Christ, so that the turning to the crovyeia is designated as 
a second renewed conversion (ériatpédere), namely, in pejus. This would 
yield an ironical contrast, but is rendered impossible by the words oi¢ raAw 
Wieseler is driven to adopt so artificial an explanation, 
because he understands the orovyeia as referring to the law only ; and this 
compels him afterwards to give an incorrect explanation of oi¢. — acdev7 x. 





avobev dovaA. OéAete. 


avrTod eyvéabnte, ‘through whom we knew 
God, or rather were known of Him.’’ Simi- 
larly, in an opposite sense, ad Smyrn. 5: ov 
Twes ayvoovvTes apvovvTar (abnegant), wadAov 
be npvyOncav (abnegati sunt) vn’ avtovd (by 
Christ), ‘“‘whom some ignorantly deny, or 
rather were denied of Him.’’ See on 1 Cor. 
Vili. 3, xiii. 12; also Matt. vii. 23. 

1 Grotius and others. 

2 Wetstein, Vater, Winer, Riickert, Usteri, 
Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others. 

3 Beza, Er. Schmidt, Cornelius & Lapide, 


Wolf, Noésselt, Koppe, Flatt, and others. 

4 Matthies. 

5 Flatt, Hofmann. 

6 See Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost, p. 886; Na- 
gelsbach 2. Jias, p. 34, ed. 3. 

7 On the latter, see Heb. vii. 18 f. 

8 See on ver. 3. 

® Opusc. I. p. 293 ff.; comp. Mynster in his 
kl. theol. Schr. p. %6; Credner, Hini., and 
Olshausen. 

10 Comp. also Reithmayr. 


180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
mrwya| because they cannot effect and bestow, what God by the sending of 
His Son has effected and bestowed (ver. 5).'— rddvv dvwev| for those revert- 
ing to Judaism desired to begin again from the commencement the slave-service 
of the orosyeia, which they had abandoned.? Not a pleonasm, as rdAw éx 
devtépov (Matt. xxvi. 42), maduv aitic (Hom. 1.1. 59), or devrepov aidic (Hom. 
Tl. i. 513) ; but the repetition is represented as a new commencement of the 
matter, as é« véac aifuc apyyc, ‘‘ again from a new beginning,” and raj é&€ 
apy, ‘again from the beginning.” * It is just the same in the instances in 
Wetstein. The oic is, however, the simple dative as in ver. 8 and usually with 
Sovaeiew ; it is not equivalent to év oi¢ (Wieseler), with dova. used absolutely. 
— fléaete] ye desire, ye have the wish and the longing for, this servitude! ® 
Ver. 10. Facts which vouch for the émvorpéoere maduv x.7.2. just expressed. 
— The interrogative view, which Griesbach, Koppe, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Hilgenfeld, following Battier,* take, has been again abandoned by Usteri, 
Schott, and Wieseler ; and Hofmann prefers the sense of sorrowful exela- 
mation. But the continuance of the reproachful interrogative form (ver. 9) 
corresponds better to the increasing pitch of surprise and amazement, and 
makes ver. 11 come in with greater weight. — raparnpeicfe] Do ye already 
so far realize your @éAere 2 Ye take care, sedulo vobis observatis, ‘ solicitously 
observe,” namely, to neglect nothing which is prescribed in the law for 
certain days and seasons.” The idea superstitiose, ‘‘ of superstitiously,” ° is not 
implied in xapa, nor the praeter fidem, ‘‘ beside faith,” which Bengel finds in 
it. — juépac| Sabbaths, fast and feast days. Comp. Rom. xiv. 5, 6 [Col. ii. 
16]. — pjvac] is usually referred to the new moons. But these, the feast-days 
at the beginning of each month, come under the previous category of jujpac. 
In keeping with the other points, raparnpeicba: ujvac must be the observance 
of certain months as pre-eminently sacred months. Thus the seventh month 
(Tisri), as the proper sabbatical month, was specially sacred ; ° and the fourth, 
fifth, seventh, and tenth months were distinguished by special fasts. — 
karpovc|] DIY, Lev. xxiii. 4. The holy festal seasons, such as those of the 
Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, are meant ; ‘‘ quibus hoc 
aut illud fas erat aut nefas,” ‘‘ whereon this or that was lawful or unlawful,” 
Erasmus.—éviavrotc] applies to the sabbatical years,” which occurred every 
seventh year, but not to the jubilee years, which had, at least after the time 
of Solomon, fallen into abeyance." But that the Galatians were at that 
time in some way actually celebrating a sabbatical year (Wieseler), cannot 
be certainly inferred from évavr., which has in reality its due warrant as 
belonging to the consistency and completeness of the theory. Onthe whole 


1 Comp. Rom. viii. 3, x. 12; Heb. vii. 18. 

2apxais mpotépats éemduevor, ** proceeding 
upon their former beginnings.’’ Pind. OJ. 
x. 94. Comp. Wisd. xix. 6. 

3 Pint. solert. anim. p. 959. 

4 Barnab. Zp. 16. 

5 Comp. ver. 21. 

8 Bibl. Brem. VI. p. 104. 

7 Comp. Joseph. Antéé. iii. 5. 5: maparnpecv 
Tas éBdouddas, ‘to earefully observe the 


seventh days ;’’ also Dio Cass. liii. 10 (of the 
observance of a law). 

8 Winer, Bretschneider, Olshausen, and 
others. 

9See Ewald, Alterth. p. 469 f.; 
Archdol. I. p. 368 ff. 

10 See, as to these, Ewald, p. 488 ff. ; Keil, 
p. 371 ff. 

11 Ewald, p. 501. 


Keil, 


CHAP 0Vs., Lis 12: 181 
passage, comp. Col. ii. 16, and Philo, de septenar. p. 286.—From our 
passage, moreover, we see how far, and within what limits, the Galatians 
had already been led astray.’ They had not yet adopted circumcision, but 
were only in danger of being brought to it (v. 2, 3, 12, vi. 12, 13). Nothing 
at all is said in the epistle as to any distinction of meats (comp. Col. 1.c.), 
except so far as it was implied in the observance of days, etc. Usteri 
(comp. Riickert) is of opinion that Paul did not mention circumcision and 
the distinction of meats, because he desired to represent the present religious 
attitude of his readers as analogous to their heathen condition. But, accord- 
ing to the comprehensive idea of the oroyeia tov xéowov, even the mention 
of circumcision and the distinctions of meats would have been in no way in- 
appropriate to the ra/v dvebev. Olshausen quite arbitrarily asserts that the 
usages mentioned stand by synecdoche for all. 

Ver. 11. b0Boiuar buac, pazwc x.7.A.| not attraction,? because, if this had 
been the case, tueic must have been the subject of wyrwe «.7.4.2 On the con- 
trary, goBovwa: duac is to be taken by itself, and pyro x.t.A. as a more pre- 
cise definition of it : ‘‘ lam afraid about you, lest perhaps I,” etc.‘ It is not 
without cause that Paul has added tac, but in the consciousness that his 
apprehension had reference not to his own interests (his possibly fruitless la- 
bor, taken by itself), but to his readers ; they themselves were the object of 
his anxiety, their deliverance, their salvation.® — eixy] without saving result 
(iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. 2), because ye are in the course of falling away from the 
life of Christian faith, which through my labors was instituted among you. 
—kexoriaxa] Perfect indicative ; for the thought was before the apostle’s 
mind, that this case had actually occurred.* —ei¢ iuac] for you ; sic denotes 
the reference of the toilsome labor which he had undergone ¢o the Galatians. 
Comp. Rom. xvi. 6. — Luther (1524), moreover, aptly remarks on ver. 11 : 
“¢ Lacrymas Pauli haec verba spirant,” ‘‘these words of Paul breathe tears.” 

Ver. 12.7 After this expression of anxiety, now follows the exhortation 
to return, and with what cordiality of affection ! ‘‘Subito. . 
argumenta conciliantia et moventia admovet,” ‘‘ He suddenly employs ap- 


. 707 Kai 7aOn, 


1De Wette very arbitrarily considers gma ot didor... doBovvta, “such a body 


that the present tense denotes, not the 
reality then present, but only the necessary 
consequence of the emartp. and Sova. @€AerTe, 
conceived as being already present. 

2 Winer, Usteri, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, 
Wieseler, Buttmann. 

3 Plat. Legg. x. p. 886 A: hoBodmat ye Tovs 
MoxOypol’s .. . Ky THs VuaY KaTadpovicwarr, 
“T fear the knaves, that perchance they 
may despise you.” Phaedr. p. 232 C, do- 
Bovpevor tovs wev ovoiav KexTyuevous, “NH 
XPNMacw avTo’s UmepBadrwvra, ‘ Fearing 
those having acquired property, that they 
might exceed them in wealth.” Diod. Sic. 
iv. 40; Thue. iv. 1.1; Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 18, 
vii. 1.2; Soph. Trach. 547. See the passages 
in Winer, p. 581 ff. ; Kriiger, gramm. Unters. 
II. p. 162 ff.; Kiihner, IT. p. 611. 

4Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 D: rovodrov 


the friends fear” (are apprehensive about 
it). Soph. O. R. 767: SéSocx’ guavtrov .. . 
LH TOAN’ aya cipnuev’ y mor, “I was alarmed 
about myself that too many things had been 
spoken by me.” 

5The mode of expression is analogous 
also in a hostile sense, ¢.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 3.18: 
epoBovvto Tov Onpamevynv, wn TUppvElyoay mpos 
avroy ot moAttar, ‘* They feared Theramenes, 
lest the citizens might pass over to him.” 
Thue. iv. 8.5: tyv 6€ vacov TavTnv poBovpevor, 
wy e& avtns Tov mOAcHOV odict ToL@vTaL, “‘hay- 
ing feared this island, lest from it they 
might make war on them.” 

6 Hermann, ad Hur. Med. 310, Elmsl. ; 
Winer, p. 469; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. 
p. 84 E. 

7 As tovy. 12-20, see C. F. A. Fritzsche, in 
Fritzschior. Opuse. p. 231 ff. 


182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

peals to win their favor and move their sympathy,” Bengel. — yiveode d¢ 
éyd, bre Kayo O¢ tueic] is explained in two ways,—either as a summons to 
give up Judaistic habits, or as a summons to love. The correct interpreta- 
tion is: ‘‘ Become as I, become free from Judaism as I am, for I also have 
become as you ; for I also, when I abandoned Judaism, thereby became as a 
Gentile (ii. 14 ; Phil. iii. 7 f.), and placed myself on the same footing with 
you who were then Gentiles, by non-subjection to the Mosaic law. Now 
render to me the reciprocum, ‘reciprocity,’ to which love has a claim.” ? 
This interpretation is not only in the highest degree suitable to the thought- 
ful delicacy of the apostle—who might justly (in opposition to Wicseler’s 
objection) represent his former secession from Judaism as a service rendered 
to his readers (as Gentiles), because he had in fact seceded to be a con- 
verter of the Gentiles—but is the only explanation in harmony with the words 
and the context. ’Eyevéu7v must be supplied in the second clause, and to 
take it from yiveo6e is just as allowable as in 1 Cor. xi. 1 (in opposition to 
Hofmann).? As to «ayé, comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 1. Following Chrysostom, 
Theodoret and Theophylact, Erasmus (in his Paraphrase), Vatablus, Sem- 
ler, and others, also Matthies, interpret : ‘‘ Become as I, abandon Judaism ; 
for I also was once a zealous adherent of it like you, but have undergone a 
change.” But as éyevéuyv isthe only supplement which suggests itself in 
harmony with the context, Paul must have written the jv, which on this 
view requires to be supplied,* and this jv would in that case have con- 
veyed the main element of the motive.* But as Paul has written, the point 
of the passage lies in his desire that his readers should become like unto 
him, as he also had become like to the readers. Schott ° correctly supplies 
éyevounv, but he again supplies éyevécHe with ipeic : ‘‘ siquidem ego quoque 
factus sum, quales vos facti estis, cum Jesu Christo nomen daretis, abjeci 
studia pristina Judaismi pariter atque vos olim abjecistis,” ‘Since I also 
became, as ye became when ye enlisted with Jesus Christ ; I rejected the 
former pursuits of Judaism, in like manner as ye formerly rejected them.” 
Incorrectly, because this would presuppose that Paul was speaking to Jewish 
Christians, and because the motive, thus understood, could only have been 
of real avail as a motive in the event of Paul having been converted later 
than the Galatians. Jerome, Erasmus,* Cornelius 3 Lapide, Estius, Mi- 
chaelis, Riickert, interpret : ‘‘ Become as I, lay aside Judaism, jor I also have 
lovingly accommodated myself to you ;” comp. Wieseler : ‘‘ Because I also, when 
I brought the gospel to you, from a loving regard toward you Gentiles put aside 
Jewish habits” (ii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 21).7 Against this view it may be urged, 
5 Comp. Rosenmiiller and Flatt. 


1 So Koppe, Winer, Usteri, Neander, 


Fritzsche, de Wette, Hilgenfeld. 

2 Comp. Phil. ii. 5; and see generally, 
Kriiger, § lxii. 4. 1; Winer, p. 541 f.; Xen. 
Anab. Vii. 7. 13: mpoepav azep avTa, 

3As Justin. ad Graec. ii. p. 40. ed. Col. 
yiveobe ws ey, OTL Kayo HUNV ws VMELs, “* be- 
come as I, because I also was as ye.” 

4 Fui, nec amplius sum, *“‘ Iwas, but am no 
longer.” 


6 In his Annotationes. 

7 So also in substance Olshausen, Ellicott, 
Reithmayr, and others ; similarly also Hof- 
mann. According to Hofmann, Paul says 
of himself that he places himself on an equal- 
ity with his Gentile readers (inasmuch as, 
where his vocation requires it, he lives 
among the Gentiles asif he were not a Jew), 
and, on the other hand, requires of them 


CHAPS DYs, 0122 183 
that, in Paul’s working as an apostle to the Gentiles, his non-Judaistic atti- 
tude was a matter of principle, and not a matter of considerate accommodation, 
and that long before he preached to the Galatians. Besides, the result would 
be adissimilar relation between the two members ; for Paul cannot require 
the putting away of Jewish habits asa matter of affectionate consideration, 
but only as a Christian necessity. [See Note LIX., p. 214.] The reciprocity 
of what is to be done under this aspect is the point of the demand. Ac- 
cording to Ewald, Paul says, ‘‘ As Christians, follow ye entirely my ex- 
ample, because I too am a-simple Christian and, strictly speaking, not more 
than you.” But thus the very idea that was most essential, that of ‘‘ a simple 
Christian ” would not be expressed. Others, including Luther, Beza, Cal- 
vin, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae, and Morus, find the sense : 
“* Tove me, as [love you.” But how could the reader discover this in the words 
since Paul has not yet said a word as to any deficiency of love to him ? 
Beza and Grotius wrongly appeal to the mode of designating one who is 
beloved as an alter ego, an idea which é¢ éyé and dc iueic do not at all con- 
vey. — adeddoi, déoxartipuov| The language of softened and deeply moved love. 
The words are to be referred not to the sequel,' in which there is nothing 
besought, but to the previous summons, with which he beseeches them to 
comply. —ovdév ue qdiKyoare| suggests a motive for granting his entreaty 
yiveode wc éya, by recalling their relation to him, as it had stood at the time 
when he first preached the gospel to them : ‘‘ How should ye not grant me 
this entreaty, since ye have done no injury to me (and certainly therefore 
in this point just asked for, will not vex me by non-compliance) ; but ye 
know,” etc. According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine, Pelagius, 
Luther, Calvin, Estius, Windischmann, and others, including Winer, the 
words are intended to give an assurance that the previous severe language 
had not flowed from displeasure and irritation against his readers. But 
Paul has in fact already changed, immediately before, to the tone of love ; 
hence such an assurance here would come in too late and inappropriately. 
Nor would the oidév ve 7duxqoare, Which on account of the connection with 
ver. 13 evidently applies to the period of his first visit, necessarily exclude 
a subsequent offence ; so that the ‘‘igitur non habui, quod vobis irascerer,” 
‘*T have, therefore, had no reason to be incensed with you” (Winer), which 
has been discovered in these words, is not necessarily implied in them. The 
temporal reference of the oidév ye gdikgoare, Which is definitely and necessa- 
rily given by ver. 13, excludes also the view of Beza, Bengel, Riickert, 


that they shail place themselves on an equality 
with him (and therefore shall not live after 
the Jewish manner, but shallshare his free- 
dom from the law, after he has accommo- 
dated himself to their position aloof from 
the law). Hofmann insists, namely, on the 
supplying of yivouac (present), which, as 
well as yiver@e, he understands in the sense 
of behaving and conducting themselves. 
This sense, however, is not suitable, since 
the readers are really to become different, and 
not merely to accommodate themselves to 


another line of conduct ; the yivec8ar would 
not therefore retain the same sense in the 
two halves of the verse. See also, in oppo- 
sition to this view, Méller onde Wette. The 
use of yiveodar in the sense of se nraestare 
is, however, in itself linguistically admis- 
sible (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4), but 
not in conformity with the proofs adduced 
by Hofmann; as to which Dissen, ad Dem. 
d. Cor. p. 239 f., takes the correct view. 
1 Luther, Zeger, Koppe, and others. 


184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

Ewald, and others, that Paul represents the vexation occasioned to him by 
the relapse of his readers as having not occurred,’ in order to cncourage 
them by this mezosis to a compliance with the yiveole dc éyé. Lastly, those 
interpretations are incorrect, which, in spite of the enclitie we, lay an anti- 
thetic emphasis on the latter ; as that of Grotius (‘‘ me privatim,” ‘‘me per- 
sonally”), that of Rettig? (not me, but God and Christ), and that of Schott 
(nihil mihi nocuistis, vobis tantum, ‘* you have injured me nothing, but only 
yourselves”). Nor is Hofmann’s view more correct : that Paul, taking oc- 
casion by a passage in the (alleged) epistle of his readers, desired only to 
say to them that the ovdév ve jdixgo. was not enough ; instead of having merely 
experienced nothing unbecoming from them, he could not but expect more 2 

their hands, for which reason they ought to recall what their attitude to 
him had been at his first visit to them. In this view what is supposed to 
form the train of thought is a purely gratuitous importation, with the fiction 
of a letter written by the Galatians superadded ; and the assumed strong 
contrast to the sequel must have been marked by a yév after oddév,? or by 
aAAa instead of dé, in order to be intelligible. — On advceiy with accusative of 
the person and of the thing, comp. Acts xxv. 10 ; Philem. 18 ; Wolf, Lept. 
p. 348 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 6. 7. 

Vv. 18, 14. Contrast to the preceding oidév ye 7duk. Comp. Chrysostom : 
‘‘Ye have done nothing to injure me ; but ye doubtless know, that I on 
account of weakness of the flesh preached the gospel to you the former time, 
and that ye,” etc. —dv aofévevavy tH¢ capxéc] The only correct explanation, 
because the only one agreeable to linguistic usage, is that adopted by Flatt, 
Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, and others, also by Winer, Gramm. p. 378, 
on account of weakness of the flesh: +4 so that it is clear, that on Paul’s first 
journey through Galatia (Acts xvi. 6) he was compelled by reason of 
bodily weakness to make a stay there, which properly did not form a part 
of his plan ; and that during this sojourn, forced on him by necessity, he 
preached the gospel to the Galatians. How he suffered, and from what cause, 
whether from natural sickness,° or from ill-treatment which he had previ- 


1“ All was forgotten and forgiven,” 
Ewald. 

2 In the Stud. u. AKrit. 1830, p. 109. 

SAs to Plat. Rep. p. 398 A, Hartung, 
Partik. 1. p. 168, forms a right judgment. 

4 Bengel also translates correctly : ‘* prop- 
ter infirmitatem,” *‘ because of weakness,”’ 
but erroneously explains that the weakness 
was not indeed “causa praedicationis ipsius,”’ 
“the cause of his preaching,” but ‘‘ adju- 
mentum, cur P. eficacius praedicaret, cum 
Galatae facilius rejicere posse viderentur,”’ 
“an aid whereby Paul preached the more 
efficaciously, although the Galatians might 
seem to be able to reject him the more 
readily.”? Similarly, but still more incor- 
rectly, Schott, who detects an ‘‘ acumen 
singulare” in Paul’s saying: ‘‘ per ipsam 
aegritudinem carnis doctrinam divinam 
vobis tradidi,” ‘‘through very weakness of 


the flesh, I delivered to you the divine 
doctrine ;” for the fact that Paul, although 
sick, had preached very zealously, had been 
of great influence in making his preaching 
more successful. In this interpretation 
everything is mistaken: for é.¢ must have 
been used with the genitive; the “ ipsam,” 
“very,” and the thought of swecessful preach- 
ing are quite gratuitously imported; and 
the whole of the alleged ‘‘ acumen” would 
be completely out of place here, where Paul 
wishes to remind his readers of their love 
then shown to him, and no of the eflicacy 
of his preaching. 

> Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7. In respect to 2 Cor. 
Z.c., Holsten, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 
1861, p. 250 f., conceives it to refer to epi- 
leptical disturbances of the circulatory and 
nervous system, such as occur among vision- 
aries. Comp. his Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 85. 


CHAP. Iv., 13, 14. 185 


ously endured on account of the gospel,! we do not know. The mention 
of an involuntary or rather quite unpremeditated working among the Gala- 
tians is not opposed to the apostle’s aim,? but favorable to it ; because the 
love which received him so heartily and joyfully must have been all the 
greater, the less it depended on the duty of befitting gratitude for a benefit 
previously destined for the recipients, and for exertions made expressly on 
their account. Many others have understood dia as denoting the apostle’s 
condition : ‘‘ amidst bodily weakness,” which is then referred by some, and 
indeed most expositors, following Chrysostom and Luther, to persecutions 
and sufferings, by others to his insignificant appearance,* by others to sickness, * 
and by others even to embarrassment and perplexity on account of the strange 
circumstances.® But in this case dca must have been used with the genitive ;° 
for expressions such as dia daua, dia vinta, dia ordua, dv aifépa, K.T.A., in 
which 6:4 denotes stretching through, are merely poetical.’ We should be 
obliged to think of the occasioning state (as in dia TovTO, did TOAAG, K.7.A.), 
which would just bring us back to our interpretation. Hence we must 
reject also the explanation of Grotius: ‘per varios casus, per mille 
pericula rerum perrexi, ut vos instituerem,” ‘* through various calamities, 
through a thousand dangers, I proceeded to establish you.” Others still have 
gone so far as to refer J? ao#. t7%¢ capxéc to Weakness of the Galatians, to 
which Paul accommodated himself. So Jerome, Estius, Hug, and Rettig /.e. 
p. 108 ff. : ‘‘ I have preached to you on account of the weakness of your flesh,” 
which is supposed to mean: ‘‘I have in my preaching had respect to the 
infirmity of your flesh.” Utterly mistaken : because Paul must necessarily 
have added a modal definition to etyyy. (even if it had only been an oitwe), 
or must have written kav’ ao#. instead of 6” aof. ; moreover, év TH capKi jov in 
ver. 14 shows that Paul meant the acfévera ti¢ capKécg to apply to himself. — 
TO mpdérepov| may mean cither : earlier, at an earlier time, so that it would be 
said from the standpoint of the present,® which in relation to the past is the 
later time (John vi. 62, vii. 51, ix. 8; 2 Cor. i. 15 ; 1 Tim. i. 13 ; 1 Pet. i. 
iweb. x. 32; LXX. Deut. 11. 12 3-1 Chron, ix: 2’; 1 Macc. xi. 27) ; or 
the former time, so that the same fact (the preaching) took place twice 
(Heb. iv. 6, vii. 27). It is interpreted in the former sense by Usteri and 
Fritzsche, and in the latter by Koppe, Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, and 
others.* The latter is the correct view, so that 1d zpdrepov presupposes a 
second sojourn of the apostle among the Galatians. For if he had preached 


1 Comp. Gal. vi. 17. 6€ Kadunida ynv Kadovnevny, ‘the country 
2 As Riickert objects. now called Boeotia, but at an earlier time 
8 Calvin. Cadmeis,” Isocr. de pace, § 121 and Bremi 
' 4Riickert, Matthies, Olshausen, Ewald ; in loc. 
comp. also in Jerome. 9 The older expositors, translating it jam 
5 Baumgarten-Crusius. pridem (Vulgate), or privs (Erasmus, Beza, 
® See Matthiae, p. 1853; Fritzsche, ad@ Calvin), or antea (Castalio), do not for the 
Rom. I. p. 138. most part attempt any more precise expla- 
7™See Schaefer, ad Mosch. 4. 91; Bern- nation. Luther: ‘for the first time.” Chry- 
hardy, p. 236 f.; Kiihner, IT. p. 282. sostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact do not 


8 Thuc. i. 12.2: thy viv Bowrtiav, mporepov give any explanation of 70 mpor. 


186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


among them only once, 7d rpétepov would have been quite an idle, superfiu- 
ous addition. But Paul adds it just in order to denote quite distinctly his 
Jirst visit, during which he founded the churches (Acts xvi. 6) : at his seeond 
visit (Acts xviii. 23), the happy experiences which he had enjoyed 7d rpére- 
po? were not repeated in such full measure ; the churches were already tainted 
by Judaism. Comp. Introd. § 2, 3. Fritzsche, indeed, maintains that vv. 
18, 19 imply that Paul before the composition of the epistle had only once 
visited the Galatians ; but see on ver. 19. 

Ver. 14. Still dependent on dr, as is logically required by the contrast to 
ovdév pe 701x., Which is introduced by oidare dé, 671. — Tov retpacpdy budy év 
Th capKi wou x.7.A.| As to the reading iuér, see the critical notes. The sense 
is : that ye were put to the proof as respected my bodily weakness (namely, as to 
your receiving and accepting my announcements, demands, etc., notwith- 
standing this my suffering and impotent appearance ; see the antithesis, 
GA Oc K.t.4.) 3 this proof ye have not rejected with disdain and aversion, but on 
the contrary have submitted yourselves to it so excellently, that ye received me as 
an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. The kai is not and yet,’ but the simple 
and, continuing the address (oidate, 6ru k.7.4.). —év TH capi ov] is the more 
precise definition of rov recpaou. iuov, specifying wherein the readers had to 
undergo a trial,—namely, in the fact of Paul’s having then preached to them 
in such bodily weakness.* Hence év rj capxi did not require the connecting 
article, as it is in reality blended with rdv recpacudv dudv so as to form one 
idea. And the definition of the sense of év rij capxe wov is derived from 6’ 
acbéverav tHe capkéc in ver. 18. Fritzsche, l.c. p. 245, objects to the sense 
which is given by the reading tuav : 1. sententiam ab h. 1. abhorrere, ‘* The 
sense is inconsistent with the connection.”” But how aptly does the negative as- 
sertion, that the Galatians, when they were put to the trial by the apostle’s 
sickness, did not despise and reject this trial, correspond with the positive 
idea, that, on the contrary, they have received him as an angel of God ! 
And how suitable are the two ideas together to the previous oidév ye 7dcK7- 
cate! 2. Sententiam verbis parum aptis conceptam esse; expectaras Kahac 
imeweivare, ‘* The sense is inadequately expressed by the words ; and that we 
should expect xaroc ireueivate.”” But this xara ireueivare is in fact most ex- 
haustively represented by the negative and positive testimony taken together ; 
the negative testimony expresses the acceptance, and the positive the stand- 
ing, of the reipacudc. 8. The sense does not suit the following aan” . . . &dé- 
facbé we. But even with the adoption of the reading tov the rejection 
of the apostle is in point of fact negatived ; hence rév reipacuov iwov.. . 
é€ertioare cannot be inappropriate to the édéfacbé we which follows. Lach- 
mann‘ makes «ai rov wecpaou. iu. év T. o. uw. Gependent on oidare (placing a 
colon after év 77 capki ov), whereby the flow of the discourse is quite unnec- 
essarily broken. [See Note LX., p. 214.]— é&erricare] expresses the sense of 


1 Koppe, Winer, Matthies. Bacavicerda ev, ‘ put to the test,” Plat. Pol. 
2 Comp. Plat. Phil. p. 21 A: év coi meipw- vi. p. 503 A. 

peda, upon thee we would make the trial. 3 See on iii. 26. 

Hom. J/. xix. 384, meipydyn. .. ev evrect, 4Comp. Buttmann in Stud. u. Krit. 1860, 


“was tried in the harness.” Comp. also  p. 379. 


CHAP. Iv., 15: 187 
éfov0. figuratively and by way of climax, adding the idea of detestation.' 
So forcible an expression of the negative serves to give the greater promi- 
nence to the positive counterpart which follows.? This deviation from the 
Greek usage should be acknowledged, and must be considered as caused by 
éfov0., as in fact Paul is fond of repeating, not without emphasis, com- 
pounds presenting the same preposition (ii. 4, 13 ; Rom. ii. 18, xi. 7, e¢ al.). 
— &¢ Xpiordv "Iyoovv] a climax added asyndetically in the excitement of feel- 
ing, and presenting to a still greater extent than o¢ dyyed. Ocov (Heb. i. 4 ; 
Phil. ii. 10 ; Col. i. 16) the high reverence and love with which he had 
been received by them, and that as a divine messenger.’ Comp. Matt. x. 40 ; 
John xiii. 20. Observe also, that even among the Galatians Paul doubtless 
preached in the first instance to the Jews (whose loving behavior towards 
the apostle was then shared in by the Gentiles also) ; hence the comparison 
with an angel and with Christ in our passage is in keeping with the apos- 
tle’s historical recollection, and does not render it at all necessary to assume 
an iorepov mpérepov in the representation, which would thus anticipate the 
already Christian view. 


Note.—According to the Recepta tr. metp. wov Tov év T. o. u., OF, as the first pov 
has special evidence against it, according to the reading tov mevp. Tov év T. o. M., 
the explanation must be: ‘‘ My bodily temptation ye have not despised or disdain- 
fully rejected,” that is, ‘* Ye have not on account of my sickness, by which I 
have been tried of God, rejected me, as the bodily impotence in which it ex- 
hibited me to you might have induced you to do.’’ Taken by itself, this sense, 
and the mode of expressing it, would be suitable enough,* even without the hy- 
pothesis, based on éSexr., of some nauseous sickness.+ [See Note LXI., p. 214. ] 


Ver. 15. Of what nature, then, was your self-congratulation ? A sorrowful 
question ! for the earnestness with which the Galatians had then congratu- 
lated themselves on the apostle’s account, contrasting so sadly with their 
present circumstances, compelled him to infer that that congratulation was 
nothing but an effervescent, fleeting, and fickle excitement. Hence the 
reading ov ody (see the critical notes) is a gloss in substance correct ; comp. 
Rom. iii. 27. Others explain it: On what was your self-congratulation 
grounded ? Why did you pronounce yourselves so happy ?° In this case 
qualis would have to be taken in the peculiar sense : how caused, which, 
however, would require to be distinctly suggested by the context. Others 


1 Comp. Rev. iii. 16, and the Latin des 
puere, respuere. 

2JIn the other Greek writers, besides the 
simple mrvevy (Soph. Ant. 649. 1217), there 
occur Only katamtveww TiW6s, amomrvew TLVA 
(4 Mace. iii. 18; Eur. 7road. 668, Hec. 1265; 
Hes. €py. 724), and Scamtvew twa (in Philo 
also mapamrvevv) in this metaphorical sense 
(Kypke, IT. p. 280; Ruhnk. ip. crit. p. 149; 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 17); but éexmrvew 
is always used in the proper sense (Hom. Od. 
v. 822; Aristoph. Vesp. 792; Anthol. Theo- 
dorid. 2; Apoll. Rhod. 478), as also éumrvev 
twt (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 17). Even in the 


passage quoted by Kypke, Plut. de fort. vel 
virt. Alex. I. p. 328, it is used in the proper 
sense, because womep xaduvov stands beside 
it. 

3 In opposition to Wieseler. 

4 In opposition to Fritzsche. 

5 So Bengel, Koppe, Winer, Matthias, and 
Schott. Schott, in opposition to the con- 
text, and all the more strangely seeing that 
he does not even read jv, but merely sup- 
plies it, lays stress upon this jv: illo tem- 
pore, nune non item, *“‘at that time, not 
now in like manner ;’’ comp. Oecumenius. 


188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

still, as Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, and including 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Reiche, Wieseler, interpret : ‘‘ How great 
(comp. Eph. i. 14) therefore was your congratulation ! how very happy you 
pronounced yourselves !” But then the dove in ver. 16 would be deprived 
of its logical reference, which, according to our interpretation, is contained 
And the words would, in fact, contain merely a su- 
perfluous and feeble exclamation, —The paxapicudc (comp. Rom. iv. 6, 9), 
with which ivov stands as the genitive of the swbject,! and not as the geni- 
tive of the object,?—for the object is obvious of itself, —refers to the circum- 
stance that they had congratulated themselves, not that they had been con- 
gratulated by Paul and others,? or even that they (the Galatians) had con- 
gratulated the apostle.4 See the sequel. The word, synonymous with 
evdarmovicuéc, IS never equivalent to paKapidtyc.® — paptepO yap ipiv K.T.A.] 
justification of the expression just used, 6 paKapropoc budv. — rode od¢fadApore 
x.t.4.] A description of the overwhelming love, which was ready for any 
sacrifice. Such proverbial modes of expression, based upon the high value 
and indispensableness of the eyes (Prov. vii. 2; Ps. xvii. 8 ; Zech. ii. 8; 
Matt. xviii. 9 ; and comp. Vulpius and Doering, ad Catull. i. 3. 5), are 
Nevertheless, Lomler,* Riickert, and Schott 
have explained the passage quite literally: that Paul had some malady of 
the eyes, and here states that, if it had been possible, the Galatians would 
have given him their own sound eyes. But considering the currency of the 
proverbial sense, how arbitrarily is this view hazarded, seeing that nowhere 
else do we find a trace of any malady of the eyes in the apostle !" Riickert 
and Schott, indeed, found specially on e dvvarév, and maintain that, to ex- 
press the meaning of the ordinary view, Paul must have written: ‘‘if it 
had been necessary.” But in any case the idea was a purely imaginary one, 
and as a matter of fact practically impossible (adtvarov) ; if Paul, therefore, 
had said : ‘‘if it had been necessary,” he would at any rate have expressed 
himself wnswitably. Besides, ci dvvarév expresses the self-sacrificing love in 
a yet far stronger degree. And, if Paul had not spoken proverbially, the 
whole assurance would have been so hyperbolical, that he certainly could 
not have stood sponsor for it with the earnest paprupo ipiv. [See Note 
LXII., p. 214 seq. | —é£opig.] the standing word for the extirpation of the 
eyes.*— éddxaré yor] namely, as property, as a love-pledge of the most joyful 


= ‘ 7 t e 
IN Tic ovv O paKap. VEL. 


current in all languages. 


1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 590 D. 

2 Matthias. 

3 Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecu- 
menius. 

4 Estius, Locke, Michaelis. 

5 Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Homberg, 
Calovius, comp. Olsh. 

6 In the Annal. d. gesammt. theol. Lit. 1831, 
p. 276. 

7™Lomler and Schott trace back the al- 
leged disease of the eyes to the blindness 
at Damascus, and identify it with the cxoAow 
(2 Cor. xii. 7). The latter idea is just as 
mistaken as the former. For the cxodow 


was, in the apostle’s view, an operation 
of Satan, whereas the blindness at Damas- 
cus arose from the effulgence of the celes- 
tial Christ. And this blindness, as it had 
arisen supernaturally, was also supernat- 
urally removed (Acts ix. 17, 18). That a 
chronic malady of the eyes should have 
been left behind, would be entirely op- 
posed to the analogy of the N. T. miracles 
of healing, of which a complete cure was 
always the characteristic. 

® See Judg. xvi. 21; 1 Sam. xi. 2; Herod. 
viii. 116 ; Joseph. Antt. vi. 5.1; Wetstein, 
in loc. 


CHAP. EY.5, 26: 189 
self-sacrificing devotedness, not for wse (Hofmann, following older expositors), 
—a view which, if we do not explain it of a disease of the eyes in the apos- 
tle’s case, leads to a monstrous idea. Without dv (see the critical notes) the 
matter is expressed as more indubitable, the condition contained in the 
protasis being rhetorically disregarded.’ 

Ver. 16. "Qore] Accordingly ; the actual state of things which, to judge 
from the cooling down—which that painful question (ric obv 6 paxapiopoc 
iuov ;) bewails—in the self-sacrificing love depicted in vv. 14, 15, must 
have superseded this love, and must now subsist.2, The words contain a pro- 
foundly melancholy exclamation : ‘‘ Accordingly, that is my position ; I am 
become your enemy !” etc. So great a change has the relation, previously 
so rich and happy in confidence and love, experienced by the fact that it 
is my business to speak the truth to you (mark the present participle aAyfebwv). 
This conduct which I pursue towards you, instead of confirming your 
inclination towards me and confidence in me, has taken them away ; I 
have become your enemy! To place (with Matthias) a note of interrogation 
after yéyova, and then to take aA7@. tuiv as an exclamation (an enemy, who 
tells you the truth!), breaks up the passage without adequate ground. 
Utterly groundless, illogical, and unprecedented (for the ore of an infer- 
ential sentence always follows the sentence which governs it) is the inver- 
sion forced upon the apostle by Hofmann, who makes out that dore «.7.. is 
dependent on (yAovow tuac: ‘¢so that I am now your enemy, if I tell you 
truth, they court you ;” it is the result of these courtings, that, when the 
apostle agreeably to the truth tells his converts (as ini. 8 f.) what is to be 
thought about the teaching of his opponents (?), he thereby comes to stand 
as their enemy. In this interpretation the special reference of a/7Qebuv ipiv 
is purely gratuitous. To explain the dare consecutivum with the indicative, 
the simple rule is quite sufficient, that it is used de re facta; and the 
emphasis of the relation which it introduces lies in its indicating the 
quality of the preceding, to which the consecutivwm refers.* Hofmann 
increases the arbitrary character of his artificial exposition by subse- 
quently, in ver. 17, separating ot kaZdc¢ from CyAoiew iuac, and looking 
upon these words as an opinion placed alongside of Gore éyOp. by. yéy.; 
respecting this mode of courting. His interpretation thus presents at once 
a violent combination and a violent separation. — éy@pic iuov] The context 
permits either the passive sense : hated by you,‘ or the active: your ene- 


1 See Hermann, ad Soph. El. 902; de part. 
av, p. 70 ff.; Bremi, ad Lys. Exe. IV. p. 439 
f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 198 ©; 
Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 490. 
But Ellendt (Lex. Soph. I. p. 125) well re- 
marks, ‘‘Sed cavendum, ne in discrimine 
utriusque generis, quod pertenue est, con- 
stituendo argutemur,” ‘‘ But care must be 
taken, lest in maintaining the distinction 
between the two classes, we prate about 
what is excessively subtile.”’ 

2 Bote cannot specify a reason, as Wieseler 
thinks, who, anticipating ver. 17, explains : 


“For no other reason than because ye pro- 
nounced yourselves so happy on my account, 
am I (according to the representation of the 
Jalse teachers) become your enemy,” ete. 
Wieseler therefore takes wove, as if it had 
been 61a tovTo. 

3 Comp. Ellendt, Zex. Soph. II. p. 1012: 
“Rem qualis sit, addita vei consequentis sig- 
nificatione definit,’’ ‘‘ It defines a subject as 
to its nature, by adding the meaning of 
that which results.”’ : 

4De Wette, Windischmann, and older 
expositors, 


190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

my ;! the latter, however, so taken that éy@p. ivev yéyova is said in accord- 
ance with the (altered) opinion of the readers. This active interpretation is 
to be preferred, because the usage among Greek authors (and throughout the 
N. T. also) in respect to the substantive éy@péc with the genitive is decisive 
in its favor.?. From the time of Homer, éyfpéc means hated only with the 
dative,’ which either stands beside it or is to be mentally supplied.4 — 
yéyova] To what time does this change (having become), which by the perfect 
is marked as continuing, refer? It did not occur in consequence of the 
present epistle,® for the Galatians had not as yet read it ; nor at the jirst visit, 
for he had then experienced nothing but abundant love. It must therefore 
have taken place at the second visit,® when Paul found the Galatian churches 
already inclined to Judaism, and in conformity with the truth could no 
longer praise them (for only éxawérye¢ Tov dixalov aAnbever, ‘* a commender of 
what is just speaks the truth,” Plat. Pol. ix. p. 589 C), but was compelled 
to blame their aberrations. — aAyOebwv ipiv]) For ‘‘veritas odiwm parit,” 
‘‘truth begets hatred,” 7 and épyiGovta: amavtec Tolc peta mappyoiacg 7 aAnOy 
2éyovor, ‘* All are provoked with those who frankly speak the truth.’”* As to 
adnbevev, to speak the truth, see on Eph. iv. 15. 

Ver. 17. The self-seeking conduct of the Judaizing teachers (i. 7), so en- 
tirely opposed to the aAnfebwv iuiv. The fact that they are not named is quite 
in keeping with the emotion and irritation of the moment ; ‘‘ nam solemus 
suppresso nomine de iis loqui, quos nominare piget ac taedet,” ‘‘ For those 
whom it disgusts and offends us to mention we generally refer to with a 
suppression of the name,” Calvin. — tyAovew duac| that is, they exert them- 
selves urgently to win you over to their side ; they pay their court to you 
zealously.? For the contrast to the behavior of the apostle harmonizes well 
with this sense ; which is also accordant with linguistic usage, since (7/Adw 
with the accusative means to be zealous about a person or thing, and obtains in 
each case the more precise definition of its import from the context.? Next 
to this interpretation comes that of Calvin, Beza, and others, including 
Riickert : 1! they are jealous of you (2 Cor. xi. 2; Ecclus. ix. 1). Taking it so, 
it would not be necessary to conceive of Paul and his opponents under the 
figure of wooers of the bride,'® of which nothing is suggested by the context ; 
but it may be urged against this explanation, that iva avrove CyAoire is not 
appropriate in the same sense. This remark also applies to the interpretation 
of Koppe and Reithmayr: !3 ‘‘ they envy you (Acts vii. 9), are full of an envious 


1 Vulgate, Beza, Grotius, and many 
others; also Rickert, Matthies, Schott, 
Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann. 


° So, correctly, Erasmus, Castalio, Er. 
Schmid, Michaelis, and others, including 
Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche, 


2Dem. 4389. 19. 1121. 12: Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 
5, de venat. 13. 12; Soph. Aj. 554. 

3 Xen. Cyrop. v. 4.50; Dem. 241. 12. 245. 
16; Lucian, Sacrif. 1; Herodian. iii. 10. 6. 

4 Rom. v. 10, xi. 28; Col. i. 21. 

5 Jerome, Luther, Koppe, 
others. 

6 Acts xviii. 23. 

7 Terent. Andr. i. 1. 40. 

® Lucian, Abdie. 7. 


Flatt, and 


Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
Ewald, Wieseler, and Hofmann. 

10Dem. 1402. 20. 500. 2.; Prov. xxiv. 13 
Wisd. i. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 31; and see Wetstein. 

11 Comp. Vulgate: aemulantur. 

12 The bridegroom being Christ ; see on 
2 Cor. xi. 2. 

13 Following Ambrose, Jerome, and The- 
odoret. 


CHAP IVs. Liv. 191 
jealousy of your freedom ;” and to that of Chrysostom and Theophylact : 
they viewith you.’ The factitive explanation : they make you to be zealous 
(Matthias), is opposed to linguistic usage, which only sanctions rapalyAdo], 
and not the simple verb, in this sense. — ot xatdc¢] not in a morally fair, hon- 
orable way, as would have been the case, if it had been done for your real good. 
—ixxdacioa:| To exclude ;* they desire to debar you ; in this lies the wickedness 
of their ¢720c. The question which arises here, and cannot be set aside 
(as Hofmann thinks) : Exclude from what? is answered by the emphatic 
avtovg Which follows, namely, from other teachers, who do not belong to their 
clique.* These ‘‘other teachers” are naturally those of anti-Judaizing 
views, and consequently Paul himself and his followers ; but the hypothesis 
that Paul only is referred to* is the less feasible, as the very idea of 
ixxAeioa: in itself most naturally points to a plurality, to an association. Since 
the avrov¢ which follows applies to the false teachers as teachers, we must 
not conceive the exclusion’ as from the whole body of Christians, nor ° as fron 
all Christians thinking differently ; comp. Hilgenfeld : ‘‘from the Pauline 
church-union.”’ It is arbitrarily taken by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theo- 
phylact, as exclusion from the state of true knowledge ; by Erasmus and Cor- 
nelius & Lapide, from Christian jfreedom; by Luther (1519), a@ Christo et 
Jiducia ejus, ‘‘ from Christ and confidenceinhim ;” by Matthies, from the hing- 
dom of truth ;7 by Wieseler and Reithmayr, from the kingdom of heaven ; by 
Matthias, from salvation by faith. All interpretations of this nature would 
have needed some more precise definition. Koppe falls into a peculiar 
error : ‘‘aconsuetudine et familiaritate swa arcere vos volunt,” ‘‘ They would 
preclude you from their companionship and intimacy” (ii. 12). — iva aitoic¢ 
CyAovre] AS twa is used here with the present indicative, it cannot mean 
in order that ;° but must be the particle of place, ubi.2 This ubi may, how- 
ever, mean either : ix which position of things ye are zealous for them ; '° or, in 


its purely local sense : ‘* they wish to debar you there, where you are zealous 


1 Comp. Borger ; ¢nAos pev éotiy ayados oTav 
Tis apeTHVY intact Tivos, SHAos dé ov KaAds, 


Christianos in quos competat haec Pauii 
querimonia !” ‘‘ Would that to-day there 


OTay Tis oTEVvoH CxBadeiy THS apEeTHS TOY KaTOP- 
dovvta, ‘ Zeal is good when one imitates the 
excellence of another; but it is not good 
when one is eager to reject, because of 
his virtue, one who is successful ’? (The- 
ophylact). 

2 Syr. translatesincludere, and consequent- 
ly read é€yxActoar. This would mean: they de- 
sire toinclude youin their circle, so that ye 
should not get free from them and come to 
associate with other teachers. Thus, in 
point of fact, the same sense would result 
as in the case of ékxAetoa, only regarded 
from a different point of view. Fritzsche’s 
reference of éyxaA. to the legis Mos. carcerem 
is not suggested by the context. The read- 
ing is altogether so weakly attested, that it 
can only be looked upon as an ancient er- 
ror of transcription. 

3 The wish expressed by Erasmus in his 
Annott.; ‘‘Utinam hodie nulli sint apud 


were none to whom this complaint of Paul 
were not pertinent!” is still but too applica- 
ble to the present day. 

4** A me meique communione,” ‘“ from 
me and fellowship with me,’ Winer; so 
also Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Kypke, 
Michaelis, Riickert, Olshausen, Reiche, and 
others. 

> With Borger and Flatt. 

6 With Schott. 

7 Comp. Ewald: from genuine Christian- 
ity. 

8 gyAovre is not the Attic future (Jatho). 
See Winer, p. 72; Buttmann, p. 33. In Thue. 
ii. 8. 3. and iii. 58. 4, éAevOepodar and épynoire 
are presents ; see Kriiger in loc. 

® Valckenaer, ad Herod. ix. 27 
K.T.A. 

10 My former explanation, as in 1 Cor. iv. 6; 
see on that passage, and Ellendt, Zea. Soph. 
I. p. 839. 


: twa Soxeéet 


192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 





Sor them,”—namely, in the Judaistic cirele, in which it is they themselves who 
are zealously courted by you, whose favor you have to seek, etc. The latter 
view, as the simplest, is to be preferred. On the usual explanation of iva 
as aparticle of design, recourse is had to the assumption of an abnormal con- 
struction of degenerate Greek ;' or of amistake on the part of the author or 
of the transcriber ;? or, with Fritzsche, to the reading ¢//ére.* But all these 
expedients are quite as arbitrary as the assumption of a faulty formation of 
mood.* The interpretation of iva as ubi is based not on an ‘“ exaggerated 
philological preicison,”® but on a linguistic necessity, to which the cus- 
tomary interpretation, yielding certainly a sense appropriate enough in itself, 
must give way, because the latter absolutely requires the subjunctive mood. 
[See Note LXIIT., p. 215. ] 

Ver. 18. Paul knew that the state of things mentioned in ver. 17 was but 
too assuredly based upon reality. So long as he had been with them (on 
the first occasion, and still even during his short second visit), the Galatians 
had shown zeal in that which was good, viz., in the actual case: zeal for their 
apostle and his true gospel, as was their duty (consequently what was morally 
right and good). But after his departure this zeal veered round in favor of 
the Judaizing teachers and their doctrine. Hence the apostle continues, ' 
giving a gentle reproof, and for that reason expressing the first half of the 
sentence merely in a general form : ‘‘ Good, however, is the becoming zealous 
in a good thing always, and not merely during my presence with you ;” that is, 
‘Tt is good when zealous endeavors are continuously applied ina good cause, 
and not merely,” etc. The chief emphasis rests on this révrore with its an- 
tithesis. The special form, in which Paul has clothed his thought, arises 
from his inclination for deliberately using the same word in a modified shade 
of meaning.® But the very point of this mode of expression requires that 
Cnrovofae should not be taken in a sense essentially different from the correct 
view of it in ver. 17 ; consequently, neither as invidiose tractari, ‘‘to be en- 
viously treated” (Koppe), nor as to endure envy (Riickert), which, besides, 
cannot be conveyed by the simple passive. In Usteri’s view Paul intends 
to say, ‘‘How much was I not the object of your ¢7A0¢ (zeal and interest), 
when I was with you! But if it should cease again so soon after my de- 
parture from you, it must have lost much of its value.” But the very kat py 
povov év T Tapeivat pe xpdc tuac plainly shows that Paul did not conceive 
himself as the object of the ¢Aovefa ; in order to be understood, he must 


1 Winer, Olshausen. Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others. 

2 Schott. 

8 Which only 113 and 219** have. 

4 Riickert, Matthies. 

5 As Hilgenfeld thinks, who appeals in 
favor of iva, wf, with the indicative to 
Clem. Hom. xi. 16: (va pydév tav mpooKvvov- 
This is certainly not ‘‘ philo- 
logical precision,” but inattention to lin- 
guistic fact ; forin this Clementine passage 
the quite customary iva, wf, is used with 
the indicative of the preterite, ‘‘quod tum 


Mévov UTIPXEV. 


fit, quando ponitur aliquid, quod erat 
futurum, si aliud quid factum esset, sed 
jam non est factum,”’ ‘‘ which occurs when 
anything which was to be is stated, if any- 
thing else was to have been done, but now 
has not been done.” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
630 f.; Herm. ad Viger. p. 850 f.; Kiihner, 
II. § 778. With regard to the respective 
passages from Barnabas and Ignatius, in 
support of iva with the present indicative, 
see on 1 Cor. iv. 6. 

6 Rom. xiv. 13; 1 Cor. iii. 17, e¢ al. ; comp. 
Wilke, Rhetor. p. 348 f. 


CHAP! Ty.) 18: 193 
have added this ye to fyioicAa, since there was no previous mention of 
himself as the object of the ¢jA0c. This objection also applies to the view 
of Reiche, although the latter takes it more distinctly and sharply : ‘‘ Bo- 
num, honestum et salutare (vi. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Thess. v. 21), vero est 
expeti aliorum studio et amore, modo et consilia honesto, év caro (conf. 2 Cor. xi. 
23 Oe0d CHAw), idque continuo ae semper xavrore, nec tantum praesente me inter 
vos,” ‘* It is indeed good, becoming, and advantageous (vi. 9 ; 1 Cor. vii-1 ; 
1 Thes. v. 21) to be sought after by the devotion and love of others, in an hon- 
orable way and from an honorable purpose (conf. 2 Cor. ii. 2), and that con- 
tinually and always, nor only when I am present among you.” But év «aag" 
cannot mean ‘‘ modo et consilio honesto” (this is expressed by xaAa¢ in ver. 
17) ; it denotes the object of the CyActobar, and that conceived of as the sphere 
in which the (yAo1cGa: takes place. Schott interprets, unsuitably to the «ai 
uy wévov x.7.2. Which follows : ‘‘ Laudabile est, guovis tempore appeti vel trahi 
ad partes alicujus, si agitur de bono et honesto colendo,” ‘It is praise- 
worthy at any time to be eager for or to be drawn to the interest of one, 
provided it be done for the purpose of cultivating the good and honorable.” 
So also, in substance, de Wette, with relation to the passive demeanor of the 
Galatians, and with an extension of the idea of the verb : ‘‘ /¢ is, however, 
beautiful to be the object of zealous attention in what is good,” by which are in- 
dicated the qualities and advantages on account of which people are ad- 
mired, loved, and courted.? Similarly Ewald : ‘‘It is beautiful to be the 
object of zealous love in what is beautiful,” CyAoverw and SyAovre in ver. 17 being 
understood in a corresponding sense. But this interpretation also does not 
harmonize with the kai uy povov x.7.2. which follows; and hence Ewald 
changes the idea of ¢7AovcOa into that of being worthy of love, and conse- 
quently into the sense of CyAwrdv elvac. Hofmann over-refines and obscures 
the correct apprehension of the passage, by bringing ver. 18, in consequence 
of his erroneous reference of Gore éyfpoc x.7.A2. (see on ver. 16), into connec- 
tion with this sentence, considering the idea to be : ‘‘ Just as his person had 
formerly been the object of their affection, it ought to have remained so, 
instead of his now being their enemy in consequence of the self-seeking 
solicitude with which his opponents take pains about them if he speaks to 
them the truth. For in his case the morally good had been the ground, on 
account of which he had been the object of their loving exertion,” etc. The 
earlier expositors,*® as also Olshausen and Matthias (the latter in keeping 


1°Ev cad, used adverbially, means either 
at the fit time (Plat. Pol. ix. p. 571 B; Xen. 
Tell. iv. 3. 5), or at the suitable place (Xen. 
TTell. ii. 1. 25), and in general, jitly (see Sturz, 
Lex. Xen. U1. p. 643), but does not occur in 
the N. T. 

2Theophylact (comp. also Chrysostom 
and Theodoret) has evidently understood 
the passage substantively, just as de Wette: 
TOUTO aiviTTeTaL, WSs apa GyAwTol Hoav wacLy ext 
7H TeAccoTntt, “This suggests that, there- 
fore, they were enviable as to their per- 
fection.” Linguistically unobjectionable. 


13 


Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 19: ématvopevous x. 
CnAoup.evous UTO TY adAwy, “praised and 
esteemed happy by the rest.’? Sympos. 4. 
45; Hiero, 1. 9; Eur. Alc. 903; Soph. #7. 
1016; Aesch. Pers. 698; Plat. Gorg. p. 473 C, 
CnAwros OY Kat cidarporiGopnevos, ‘* being envi- 
able and accounted happy.’? See gener- 
ally, Blomf. Gloss. Aesch. Prom. 338 ; Pier- 
son, ad Moer. p. 169. 

’ Not all. The learned Grotius has evi- 
dently understood it passively; ‘Rectum 
erat, ut semper operam daretis, ut ego a 
vobis amari expeterem; est enim hoc 


194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

with his factitive interpretation of the active), mostly take {yAvicfa: as 
middle, in sense equivalent to ¢j4ovv, with very different definitions of the 
meaning,! but inconsistently with the wsws loguendi. 

Ver. 19. This verse is not be attached to the preceding,’ —a construc- 
tion which makes this earnest, touching address appear awkward and dis- 
similar in character to what is previously said,—but the words are to be 
separated from what precedes by a full stop, and to be joined with what 
follows, the tender affection of which is quite in harmony with this loving 
address. Difficulty has been felt as to dé in ver. 20 ;* but only from inat- 
tention to the Greek use of dé after the address, when the writer turns to a 
new thought, and does so with a tacit anthithesis, which is to be recognized 
from the context. It is found so not merely with questions,‘ but also in 
other instances.® Here the slight antithetic reference lies, as the very repe- 
tition of rapeivac rpdoc iuac indicates, in his glancing back to cai py udvov 
«.7.2., namely : ‘“Although zeal in a good cause ought not to be restricted 
merely to my presence with you, I yet would wish to be now present with 
you,” ete. The dé of the apodosis, which Wieseler here assumes, is not suit- 
able, because #@eAov dé x.7.2. does not stand in any kind of antithesis to rexp. 
ov ob¢ Tad. Gdive k.T.A.; and besides, no connected construction would result 
from it ; for the idea : ‘‘ Because ye are my children . . . I would wish,” does 


amari honestum,” “It was right for you 
always to take pains that I might aspire 
to be loved of you; for it is good to 
_be loved.” Also Michaelis (comp. Er. 
Sehmidt): “It is good when others court 
our favor.’ Both interpretations come 
very near to that of Usteri. 

1 Erasmus, Paraphr., ‘ Vidistis me legis 
ceremonias negligere, nihil praedicare prae- 
ter Christum, aemulabamini praesentem. 
Si id rectum erat, cur nune absente me 
vultis alios aemulare in lis, quae recta non 
sunt?’ ‘You saw that I neglected the 
ceremonies of the law, that I preached 
nothing but Christ, and you emulated me 
when I waspresent. If this was right, why, 
now, inmy absence do you wish to emulate 
others in such things as are not right.”’ Lu- 
ther, 1524: ‘‘ Bonum quidem est aemulari et 
imitari alios, sed hoe praestate in re bona 
semper, nunquam in mala, non tantum me 
praesente, sed etiam absente,” ‘It is 
good indeed to emulate and imitate others, 
but do'this always in a good matter, never 
in an evil, not only in my presence, but 
also in my absence ” Comp. Calvin * ‘t Imi- 
tari vel eniti ad alterius virtutem,” ‘‘To 
imitate or strive after the virtue of an- 
other.”” Beza: “ At noster amor longe est 
alius; vos enim bonam ob causam non ad 
tempus, sed semper, non solum praesens, 
sed etiam absens absentes vehementissime 
complector,’”? “But our love is far differ- 
ent; forina good cause J most ardently 


embrace you, not for a time, but always; 
not only when [I am present, but also when 
J am absent, do I embrace you absent.” 
Locke (ev cade masculine): ‘‘ Vos amabatis 
me praesentem tanquam bonum, fas itaque 
est idem facere in absentem,” *‘ You loved 
me when present as a good ; therefore it is 
right to do the same towards Ine absent.”’ 
Bengel: ‘‘Zelo zelum aeccendere, zelare 
inter se,’ ‘““To kindle zeal by zeal, to be 
mutually zealous.’? Morus: ‘ Laudabile 
autem est, sectari praeceptorem in re bona 
semper, neque solum,”’ ete., “It is, more- 
over, praiseworthy always in agood matter 
to follow a teacher, nor only,” ete. ; sub- 
stantially, therefore, as Erasmus. Others in- 
terpret in various ways. Olshausen: “‘ Paul 
desires to make known that he finds the zeal 
of the Galatians in itself very praiseworthy, 
and certainly would not damp it; and he 
therefore says, that the being zealous is 
good if it takes place on account of a good 
cause, and is maintained not merely in his 
presence, but also in his absence.” So 
already Calovius and others. 

2 Bos, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, Riick- 
ert, Usteri, Schott, Ewald, Hofmann. 

3 Which therefore is omitted in Chrysos- 
tom and some min. 

4Hom. J. xv. 244; Plat. Legg. x. p. 890 
E; Xen. Mem. i. 3. 13, ii. 1. 26; Soph. O. ¢. 
823. 1459. 

5 Herod. i. 115; Xen. Anabd, v. 5. 13, vi. 6. 


12. 


CHAP, EV., 19% 195 
not correspond with the words. According to Hilgenfeld, that which the 
address is intended to introduce (viz., to move the readers to return) is wholly 
suppressed, and is supposed to be thereby the more strikingly suggested.’ 
But the affectionate tenor of the wish which follows in ver. 20 harmonizes 
so fully with the tender address in ver. 19, that that hypothesis, which 
Calvin also entertained (‘‘ hic quasi moerore exanimatus in medio sententiae 
tractu deficit,” ‘‘here as though stupefied by grief, he loses courage right in 
the midst of the delivering of his judgment”), does not seem warranted. 
Nevertheless Buttmann also? assumes an anacoluthon. —rexvia pov] The 
word rexvia, so frequent in John, is not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. 
But Lachmann and Usteri ought not to have adopted (following B F G &*) 
the reading réxva, since it is just in this passage, where Paul compares him- 
self to a mother in childbirth, that the phrase ‘‘my Jittle children” finds a 
more special motive and warrant than in any other passage where he uses 
réxva.*— odc] The well-known constructio kata civeow, ‘‘ construction accord- 
ing to sense.” 4— réAw ddive] whom I once more travail with. Paul repre- 
sents himself, not, as elsewhere (1 Cor. iv. 15 ; Philem. 10), asa father, but 
in the special emotion of his love, as a mother who is in travail, and whose 
labor is not brought to an end (by the actual final birth) until nothing further 
is requisite for the full and mature formation of the rexviov. So long as this 
object is not attained, according to the figurative representation, the ddivew 
still continues.* Bengel remarks very correctly : ‘‘ Loquitur ut res fert, 
nam in partu naturali formatio est ante dolores partus,” ‘‘ He speaks as the 
case demands, for in natural birth formation precedes the pains of birth.” 
The point of comparison is the loving exertion, which perseveres amidst trouble 
and pain in the effort to bring about the new Christian life. This metaphor- 
ical odiver had been on the first occasion easy and joyful, ver. 13 ff. 
(although it had not had the full and lasting result ; see afterwards, on 
ayplc ov k..A.); but on this second occasion it was severe and painful, and 
on this account the word ddivw is chosen (and not rixtw or yevvo), which, 
however, is also appropriate to the earlier act of bearing intimated in ra2, 
since the idea of pains is essential to the conception of a birth, however 
slight and short they may be. The sense, when stripped of figure, is: ‘‘ My 
beloved disciples ! at whose conversion I am laboring for the second time 
with painful and loving exertion, until ye shall have become maturely- 
formed Christians.” This continuous of¢ rd ddivw is to be conceived as 
begun, so soon as Paul had learned the apostasy of his readers and had com- 
menced to counteract it ; so that his operations during his second visit ° are 
thus also included : hence we cannot’ consider vy. 18, 19 as intimating 


1 Comp. also Reithmayr. 

2 Neut. Gr. p. 331. 

31 Cor. iv. 14; 2 Cor. vi. 18: comp. also 
Heimat AS.32 Cim. i. 1; 

4 Winer, p. 133. 

® Heinsius, Grotius, Koppe, Riickert, and 
others, erroneously hold that ééiverw here 
means ¢o be pregnant, which it never does, 
not even in the LXX., Isa. xxvi. 17 ; Ps. vii. 


15; Song of Sol. viii.5; Philo, gvod Deus 
immut. p. 313 B; Plat. Theaet. p. 148 C, 210 
B. On diver with the accusative of the 
person, comp. parturire aliquem, Isa. li. 2; 
Song of Sol. viii. 5; Eur. Zph. A. 1234. 

8 Comp adntevmr vuctv, ver. 16. 

7 With Fritzsche (Zc. p. 244) and Ulrich 
(in the Stvd. u. Kvrit. 1836, p. 459). 


196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


that Paul had only once visited Galatia. According to Wieseler, radu odirw 
is intended to express the idea of the radvyyevecia, ‘‘ regeneration,” Tit. iii. 
5 ; Paul had regenerated his readers already at their conversion, and here 
says that he is still continuously occupied in their regeneration, until they 
should have attained the goal of perfection on the part of the Christian — 
similarity with Christ. This is incorrect, because zd/ must necessarily 
denote a second act of travail on the part of Paul. Paul certainly effected 
the regeneration of his readers on occasion of the first ddivery, which is pre- 
supposed by wddw ; but because they had relapsed (i. 6, ili. 1, iv. 9f., e 
al.), he must be for the second time in travail with them, and not merely still 
continuously (an idea which is not expressed) their regenerator, so that the 
idea of the rad, the repetition, would be on the part of the readers. The- 
ophylact! aptly defines the sense of raAw Odivw not as that of a continued 
avayévenowc, ‘new birth,” but as that of rdAcv érépac avayervgoewc, ‘again 
another new birth.” The sense, ‘‘ whose regeneration I am continuing,” 
would have been expressed by Paul in some such form as of¢ ob ravomat 
avayevvav, ‘‘ whom I do not cease to beget anew,” or oi¢ érc kai viv avayevva, 
‘whom even now I am begetting anew.” — aypic ov popdwth Xpioroc év ipiv] 
A shadow is thus thrown on the result of the jist conversion (birth), which 
had undergone so sudden a change (i. 6). The reiterated labor of birth is 
not to cease until, etc. This meaning, and along with it the emphasis of 
the ayprc ot x.7.2., has been missed by Hofmann, who, instead of referring 
radaw to adirw only, extends it also to dypic ot «.7.2. In connection with the 
general scope of the passage, however, the stress is on popdofy: ‘until 
Christ shall have been formed, shall have attained His due conformation, 
in you,” that is, wntil ye shall have attained to the fully-formed inner life of 
the Christian. For the state of ‘‘ Christ having been formed in man” is by 
no means realized ‘‘ so soon as a man becomes a Christian,” * but, as clearly ap- 
pears from the notion of the aypic ot, is the goal of development which the 
process of becoming Christian has to reach. When this goal is attained, 
the Christian is he in whom Christ lives (comp. on i. 20) ; as, for 
instance, on Paul himself the specific form of life of his Master was 
distinctly stamped. So long, therefore, as the Galatians were not yet de- 
veloped and morally shaped into this complete inward frame, they were 
still like to an immature embryo, the internal parts of which have not yet ac- 
quired their normal shape, and which cannot therefore as yet come to the 
birth and so put an end to the ddiverv. In the Christian, Christ is to inhabit 
the heart (Eph. iii. 17) : in him there is to be the vowc, ‘‘ mind,” of Christ 
(1 Cor. ii. 16), the rveiua, ‘‘ spirit,” of Christ (Rom. viii. 9), the oxAdyyva, 
‘‘bowels,” of Christ (Phil. i. 8) ; and the body and its members are to be 
the body and members of Christ (1 Cor. vi. 13,15). All this, which is com- 
prehended in the idea Xpvoroc év iyiv, is in our passage rendered intelligible 
by the representation that Christ is to be formed in us, or to become present 
in the life-form corresponding to His nature. This view is not different in 
reality, although it is so in the mode of representation, from that of spirit- 


1 Comp. Chrysostom. 2 Hofmann. 


CHAP PVs 20% 197 
ual transformation after the image of Christ (2 Cor. iii. 18); for, according 
to our passage, Christ Himself is in Christians the subject of the specific de- 
velopment. Bengel, moreover, well remarks: ‘‘ Christus non Paulus, in 
Galatis formandus,” ‘‘ Christ, not Paul, is to be formed in the Galatians.” — 
pop¢dw] occurs here only in the N. T.; but see LXX. Isa. xliv. 13 (ed. 
Breit.) ; Symmachus, Ps. xxxiv. 1; Arat. Phaen. 375 ; Lucian, Prom. 3 ; 
Plut. de anim. generat. p. 1018 ; Theophr. ¢. pl. v. 6, 7.7 

Ver. 20. As to the connection of thought of the dé with ver. 18, see on 
ver. 18, —jfeAov] namely, if the thing were possible.*— dpi] just now, 
presently (see on i. 9), has the emphasis. — aAadgar tiv goviv wov| The em- 
phasis is on a#Adga. But in harmony with the context (see vv. 16, 18, and 
the foregoing dprv), this changing can only refer to the second visit of the 
apostle to the Galatians, not to the language now employed in his letter, as 
many expositors think.’ Erroneously, therefore—and how sharply in oppo- 
sition to the previous affectionate address !—Ambrosius, Pelagius, Wet- 
stein, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, take the 
sense to be: to assume a stern language of reproof. Hofmann also erro- 
neously holds that Paul means the (in oral expression) move chastened tone of 
a didactie statement—aiming at the bringing the readers back from their 
error—after the strongly excited style in which, since the word @avuafo in 
i. 6, he had urged his readers, as one who had already been almost deprived 
of the fruit of his labors. As if Paul had not previously, and especially 

‘from iii. 6 to iv. 7, written didactically enough ; and as if he had not also 
in the sequel (see immediately, ver. 21, and chap. v. and vi. down to the 
abrupt dismissal at the end) urged his readers with excitement enough ! 
The supposition, however, which Hofmann entertains, that Paul has hitherto 
been answering a /etter of the Galatians, and has just at this point come 
to the end of it, is nothing but a groundless hypothesis, for there is no trace 
of such a letter to be found in the epistle. No; when Paul was for the 
second time in Galatia, he had spoken sharply and sternly, and this had 
made his readers suspect him, as if he had become their enemy (ver. 16) : 
hence he wishes to be now with them, and to speak to them with a voice differ- 
ent from what he had then used, that is, to speak to them in a soft and gentle 
tone.* By this, of course, he means not any deviation in the substance of 
his teaching from the aA7fetve (ver. 16), but a manner of language betoken- 
ing tender, mother-like love. A wish of self-denying affection, which is 





1 See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 345. 

2 Comp. Rom. ix. 3; Acts xxv.22. See 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 235 ; Kiihner, 
II. p. 68; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 245. 

3So also Zachariae (who is followed by 
Flatt) : ‘‘to lay aside my present mournful 
language, and to adopt that of tenderness 
and contentment.’’ In this case Paul must 
haye used Svvacda ; for unless his readers 
had improved in their conduct, it would 
have been impossible for him to speak con- 
tentedly. Bengel, in opposition to the idea 
of adAcEar; ‘‘ molliter scribit, sed mollius 


loqui vellet,” ‘‘ He writes mildly ; but he 
would wish to speak still more mildly.” 
Jerome explained the passage as referring 
to the exchange of the vow epistolica, ** epis- 
tolic utterance,” for the vivus sermo, ** liv- 
ing speech,’? of actual presence, which 
might have more effect in bringing them 
back ad veritatem, ‘* to the truth.” 

4Not exactly weeping, as Chrysostom 
thinks : movjoar Kat Saxpva Kai mavta eis 
dpovov emgracacVa, ‘‘to shed tears, and to 
turn all things to lamentation.” 


198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


ready and willing, in the service of the cause and for the salvation of the 
persons concerned, to change form and tone, although retaining ¢evav 
wpevdéwv ayveoordor, ‘‘a voice unexperienced in falsehoods.” * The latter was 
a matter of course in the case of a Paul, willingly though he became alj 
things to all men ; comp. on 1 Cor. ix. 22. Many other expositors® under- 
stand it as : to speak according to the circumstances of each case, with tenderness 
and affection to one, with severity and censure to another. Comp. Corn. & 
Lapide : ‘‘ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blandirer, nunc gemerem, nunc ob- 
secrarem, nunc objurgarem vos,” ‘‘namely, that, as a mother now I might 
caress, now sigh over, now beseech and now chide you.” But this cannot be 
expressed by the mere aAAdéac tr. ¢., Which without addition means nothing 
more than to change the voice,* that is, to assume another voice, to let 
oneself be heard otherwise, not differently. Paul must have added either 
a more precise definition, such as ei¢ roddove tpdrovc, cic popoa¢g mAeiovac, 
‘‘into many ways, various forms,”® or at least some such expression 
as mpoc tyv ypeiav (Acts xxvili. 10), mpdc 7rd ovudépov (1 Cor. xii. 7), 
mpo¢c d1akptow Kadov te Kai kaxov (Heb. v. 14). Fritzsche incorrectly in- 
terprets it : to adopt some other voice, so that ye may believe that ye are 
listening to some other teacher, and not to the hated Paul. What a strange, 
unseemly idea, not at all in keeping with the thoughtful manner of 
the apostle !_ According to Wieseler, the sense intended is : to exchange my 
speaking with you ; that is, to enter into mutual discourse with you, in order 
most surely to learn and to obviate your counter-arguments. But in this 
view ‘‘with you” is a pure interpolation, although it would be essentially 
requisite to the definition of the sense; and aAAdccevy Aéyouc, to say nothing of 
adn. dwviv, is never so used. What Wieseler means is expressed by ayeiSeobai 
tiva Adyote, ‘to answer one in words,” ° mpocd:adréyecbat ti, *‘ to answer one in 
conversation,” 7 ovtyreiv tivt, Or rpdc¢ Teva, ‘‘ to dispute with one,” ® Adyoue avr- 
BaArew mpdc, ‘to have communication with,” ° 
‘to give and to receive an account” (Plat. Rep. p. 531 E). — ére aropoimac 
év buiv] justifies the wish of aA2deac tiv dwr. wov. The usual interpretation is 
the correct one: Tam perplered about you ; év wuiv is to be taken as in 
the phrase fappa év iviv, ‘‘ I have confidence in you,” 2 Cor. vii. 16, so that 
the perplexity is conceived as inherent in the readers, dependent on their 
condition as its cause (comp. also i. 24). The perplexity consists in this, 
that he at the time knows no certain ways and means by which he shall 
effect their re-conversion (ver. 19); and this instils the wish (é7v) that he 
could now be present with them, and, in place of the severe tone which at 
the preceding visit had had no good effect (ver. 16), could try the experi- 


dovvai Te Kal arodéEaolat Adyor, 


1 Pind. Ol. vi. 112. lix. p. 575, in Wetstein. Comp. Rom. i. 23 ; 
2 As Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Wisd. iv. 11, xii. 10; frequently in the 
Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, ENXEXG 


Koppe, Borger, Winer, Matthies, Schott, 5 Lucian, Vit. Auct. 5. 

de Wette. 6 Hom. Qd. iii. 148, et al. 4 
3 Comp. adAdAartey xwpav, Plat. Parm. p. 139 7 Plat. Theaet. p. 161 B. 

A; ios, Eur. Bacch. 53; xp®na, Eur. Phoen. 8 Acts vi. 9; Luke xxii. 23. 

1252 ; oroAds, Gen. XXXV. 2. ® Luke xxiv. 17. 


4 See Artem. ii. 20, iv. 56; Dio Chrysostom, 


CHAP: 1V., 21, 15) 
ment of an altered and milder tone. The form azopoiyua: is, moreover, to be 
taken passively (as a middle form with a passive signification), so that the 
state of the azopeiv is conceived of as produced on the subject, passively.’ 
Fritzsche, l.c. p. 257, holds the sense to be : ‘‘ Nam haeretis, quo me loco ha- 
beatis, nam sum vobis suspectus,” ‘‘For ye are embarrassed in what place to 
have me, since I am suspected of you.” Thus év éuiv would be among you, and 
axopovua : I am an object of perplexity, according to the well-known Greek 
use of the personal passive of intransitive verbs.? But the sense : ‘‘sum 
vobis suspectus” is interpolated, and there is no ground for deviating from 
the use of dzopovua throughout the N.T.;* as, indeed, the idea ‘‘ swm vobis 
suspectus,” ‘I am suspected of you, ” cannot give any suitable motive for 
the wish of the aAAdtae tHv dwr7v, unless we adopt Fritzsche’s erroneous 
interpretation of aAAaga:. To disconnect ® év duiv from aropovya, and attach 
it to GAAdE. Tr. dwvyv wov, would yield an addition entirely superfluous after 
mapetvar rpoc tuac, and leave aropovua: without any more precise definition of 
its bearing. And the proposal to attach 6rz azop. év iuiv as protasis to the 
following Aéyeré or ° would have the effect of giving to the 2éy. wor, which 
stands forth sternly and peremptorily, an enfeebling background. 

Vv. 21-30. Now, at the conclusion of the theoretical portion of his epistle, 
Paul adds a quite peculiar antinomistic disquisition,—a learned Rabbinico-al- 
legorical argument derived from the law itsel7,—calculated to annihilate the in- 
fluence of the pseudo-apostles with their own weapons, and to root them 
out on their own ground. 

Ver. 21, without any connecting link, leads most energetically’ at once in 
mediam rem. On the iéyeré yor, SO earnestly intensifying the question, comp. 
Bergler, ad Aristoph. Acharn. 318. —oi ind véuov x.t.A.] Ye who wish to be 
under the law. This refers to the Judaistically inclined readers, who, partly 
Gentiles and partly Jewish Christians, led astray by the false teachers (i. 7), 
supposed that in faith they had not enough for salvation, and desired to be 
subject to the law (ver. 9), towards which they had already made a con- 
siderable beginning (ver. 10).° — rdv véuov ovK axotete ;| Hear ye not the law ? 
Is it not read in your hearing? ° The public reading of the venerated divine 
Scriptures of the law and the prophets, after the manner of the synagogues,’ 
took place in the assemblies for worship of the Christian churches both of 
Jewish and of Gentile origin: they contained, in fact, the revelation of 
God, of which Christianity is the fulfilment, and an acquaintance with them 
was justly considered as a source of the Christian knowledge of salvation ; 








1 Comp. aropyteis, Dem. 830. 2, and amo- 
pydynoerar, Ecclus. xviii. 7. 

2Schoemann, ad Isaeum, p. 192. 

8 Bernhardy, p. 341 ; Kiihner, II. p. 34 f. 
Comp. Xen. de rep. Lac. xiii. 7: wote tov 
Seomevwv ytyveotar ovdév amopeitar, Plat. 
Soph. p. 243 B, Legg. vii. p. 799 C. 

42 Cor. iv. 8; Luke xxiv. 4; Acts xxy. 
20; John xiii. 22. 

5 With Hofmann. 

° Matthias, 


T déyeré wor: ‘urget quasi praesens,”’ ‘‘ he 
urges as though present,” Bengel. 

8 Chrysostom aptly remarks : Kadds eirev: 
ot deAovTEs, OV yap THS THY TpayuaTwY akoAoV- 
tlas, aAAa THs ExelvwY akalpov PiAoverktas TO 
““Well does he say: ye who 
wish, for the subject was not of the suc- 
cession of things, but of their unseasonable 
contentiousness.”’ 

® Comp. John xii. 34 ; 2Cor. ili. 14. 

10 Rom. ii. 15; Acts xv. 21; Luke iy. 16. 


Toayna HV, 


200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


for its articles of faith (1 Cor. xv. 3 f.) and rules of life (Rom. xiii. 8-10, xv. 
4) were to be xara tac ypaddc, ‘‘ according to the Scriptures.” Now the hear- 
ing of the law must necessarily have taught the Galatians how much they 
were in error. [See Note LXIV., p. 215.] Hence this question, expressive 
of astonishment,’ which is all the stronger and consequently all the more 
appropriate, the more simply we allow axotere to retain its primary literal 
signification. Hence we must neither explain it? as audisse, i.e., nosse, notum 
habere, ‘‘to have heard, i.e., to know, to be acquainted with ;”* nor, with 
Jerome and many others, including Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, 
Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, as to wnderstand,* which Paul conceives as the hear- 
ing of the rvevua speaking behind the ypayua ;° nor, with Erasmus, de Wette, 
Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, as akotevy tivoc, to give attention, that is, to bestow 
moral consideration. ® —véuoc is used here in a twofold sense :’ it means, in 
the first place, the institute of thelaw ; and secondly, the Pentateuch, accord- 
ing to the division of the Old Test. into Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa.® 
The repetition of the word gives emphasis. 

Ver. 22. Tap] now gives the explanation of and warrant for that question, 
by citing the history, narrated in the law, of Ishmael and Isaac, the two sons 
of the ancestor of the theocratic people.° —éx rie mavdioxne] by the (well- 
known) bondswoman, Hagar.” As to the word itself (which might also de- 
note a free maiden), see Wetstein, I. p. 526 f. ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 259 f. 
— éx tic édevd.| Sarah. 

Ver. 23 presents the relation of diversity between the two, in contrast to 
the previously mentioned relation of similarity, according to which they 
both were sons of Abraham. — xara capxa] according to the flesh, so that the 
birth was the result of a natural carnal intercourse. Differently in Rom. i. 
3, ix. 5. —yeyévyyra:] is born ; the perfect realizes the historically existing 
relation as present. — dud tie érayyediac] through the (well-known) promise, 
Gen. xvii. 16, 19, xviii. 10; Rom. ix. 9. This must not, however, be ra- 
tionalized (with Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others) into ‘‘ per eam vim ex- 
traordinariam, quam Deus promiserat,” ‘‘ by that extraordinary power 
which God had promised,” which does violence to the history in Gen- 
esis, as above ; nor, with Hofmann, to the effect that the promise, with 
which Abraham had been called, was realized in the procreation itself ; 
but it is to be definitely explained in accordance with the tenor of the words 
and with Gen. xxi. 1: ‘‘by virtue of the promise he is born,” so that in his 
procreation (Matt. i. 2 ; Luke iii. 34) the divine promise made to his parents, 





1 Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 3 See Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 503 C ; Ast, 
2, p. 57) deals with our passage in an un- ad Plat. Legg. i. p.9 3 Spohn, Lectt. Theoer. 
warrantable and intolerably violent man- 7) 034 135}, 
ner by writing ot (as relative), but makes 4 Comp. on 1 Cor. xiv. 2. 
the summons (ell me, ye who, wishing to be 5 So Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
under the law, do not hear the law) to be only p. 382. 
prepared for by ver. 22 ff., and that which 6 Rather, to have an ear for, as 1 Cor. Xiv. 
Paul had in view in the Aéyeré poe of ver. 21 2; Matt. x. 14; John viii. 47. 
to follow at length in ver. 30. The address 7 Comp. Rom. iii. 19. 
runs on simply and appropriately, and af- § See on Luke xxiv. 44. 
fords no occasion for any such intricacy. 9 See Gen. xvi. 15 f., xxi. 2 f. 


2 With Winer; comp. Matthies. 10'See Gen. Xvi. 3. 


CHAP. IV., 24. 201 


which had assured them of the birth of a son, was the procuring cause of 
the result, which would not have occurred without such an operation of the 
power of the divine promise (Gen. xvii. 14), seeing that the two parents 
were in themselves incapable of the procreation of Isaac ; for Sarah was 
barren, and both were already too old (Gen. xviii. 11 ; Rom. iv. 19).? 

Ver. 24. "Arwa] quippe quae, quae quidem, ‘‘ Surely which things, or which 
things indeed,” taking up the recorded facts under the point of view of a 
special quality. —éorw adAdAnyopobmeva| are of allegorical import. The word 
adAnyopeiv, not occurring elsewhere in the N. T., means dAdo ayopetery, so to 
speak (to set forth, to relate), that another sense is expressed than the words 
convey ; which further meaning lies concealed behind the immediate meaning 
of what issaid.? In the passive: to have an allegorical meaning,* Schol. Soph. 
Aj. 186 ; Porph. Pyth. p. 185 ; Philo, de Cherub. I. p. 148 ; and see gener- 
ally, Wetstein.4 The understanding of the O. T. history in an allegoric 
sense was, as is well known, extremely prevalent among the later Jews.° 
But on account of the Rabbinical training in which Paul had been brought 
up,°® and on account of his truthful character, nothing else can be assumed 
than that he himself was convinced that what he related contained, in addi- 
tion to its historical sense, the allegorical import set forth by him ; so that 
he did not intend to give a mere argumentum kar’ dvopwror, ‘ad hominem,” 
but ascribed to his allegory the cogency of objective proof. [See Note LXYV., 
p- 215.] Hence he has raised it into the keystone of his whole antinomistic 
reasoning, and has so earnestly introduced (ver. 21) and carried it out, that 
we cannot hold (with Schott) that it was intended to be an argumentum 
secundarium, quod insuper accederet, ‘‘a secondary argument to be added 
besides.” But in the view of a faith not associated with Rabbinical train- 
ing, the argument wholly falls to the ground asa real proof (Luther says 
that it is ‘‘too weak to staid the test”) ;" while the thing proved is none the 


1 Comp. Chrysostom. every obscure or veiled discourse (Herod. y. 


2 Hesychius: aAdAnyopia aAAo te mapa To 
akovoy.evav Umoderkvuavea, “ An allegory indi- 
cating something else than what is heard.” 
Comp. Quinctil. viii. 6; see Plut. Mor. p. 363 
D, Athen. ii. p. 69 C3; Philo, de migr. Abr. 
p. 420 B; Joseph. Antt. prooem. 4 

3 Not: to be the object of allegorical con- 
ception (Hofmann). The allegorical sense 
is @ priori contained and given in the facts 
which stand recorded ; they have, contained 
in them, the allegorical import which is only 
exhibited by the explanation. If éoriv addny. 
were to be taken, not in the sense of being 
expressed, but in that of being conceived as 
such, which is certainly found in Plutarch, 
Synesius, and elsewhere, Paul must have 
written adAdAnyopetrar, or the verbal adjective 
ahAnyopyteos. Moreover, adAnyopecy is relat- 
ed to aivitrec@ar as species to genus; but 
Hofmann arbitrarily asserts that the da/ter 
requires for its interpretation wif, the for- 
mer understanding. Atvittesdac includes 


56; Plat. Rep. p. 332 B, and frequently; 
Soph. Aj. 1137; Eur. Zon. 480; Lucian, V. 7. 
i. 2), whether it be in an allegorical form or 
not, and whether it require wit or not., 

4 Jn the older Greek, allegory was termed 
umovora (see Plut. de aud. poet. p. 19 EB), 
Plato, de Rep. p. 878 D; Xen. Symp. 3. 6; 
Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 200 f.). 

5 Synops. Sohar. p. 25.1: ‘*‘ Quicunque di- 
cit narrationes legis alium non habere 
sensum, quam illius tantum historiae, istius 
crepet spiritus,’’ ‘‘ Whoever says that the 
narratives of the law have no other sense, 
than only of that history, let his spirit 
prate.” See generally, Dépke, Hermencut. 
I. p. 104 ff.; Gfrérer, Gesch. d. Urchristenth. 
I. i. p. 68 ff. 

® Comp. Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, 
p. 369 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 295 f. 

7 We must be on our guard against con- 
founding the idea of the allegory with that 
of the type (1 Cor. x. 6, 11; Rom. y. 14; 


202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

less established independent of the allegory, and is merely illustrated by it. 
‘‘Nothing can be more preposterous than the endeavors of interpreters to 
vindicate the argument of the apostle as one objectively true.” '— airac] 
namely, Hagar and Sarah ; for see afterwards #ric éoriv “Ayap. Hence not 
equivalent to rata, sc. ta GAAnyopobueva, ‘*The things allegorized,”? as is 
assumed, in order not to admit here an eivac onwavtixév. — cio] namely, alle- 
gorically, and so far = signify.* — dbo drabijxar| two covenants, not: institutions, 
declarations of will,* or generally ‘* arrangements connected with the history 
of salvation’ (Hofmann), any more than in iii. 15. The characteristic of 
a covenant, that there must be two parties, existed actually in the case of 
the dvatjxac (God and the men, who were subject to the law,—God and the 
men, who believe in Christ).° — pia pév axd dpovc Suva] One proceeding from 
Mount Sinai, which was instituted on Mount Sinai, and therefore issues 
from it. Instead of ad, the mere genitive might have been used,° but the 
former is more definite and descriptive. The pév is without any correspond- 
ing dé,’ for in none of the cases where dé subsequently occurs is it correlative 


to this pév. 


comp. Heb. ix. 24; 1 Pet. ili. 21), as Calvin 
and many others have done: “a familia 
’ Abrahae similitudo ducitur ad ecclesiam ; 
quemadmodum enim Abrahae domus tune 
fuit vera ecclesia, ita minime dubium est, 
quin praecipui et prae aliis memorabiles 
eventus, qui in ea nobis contigerunt, nobis 
totidem sint fypi,” ‘‘From Abraham’s 
family the comparison is applied to the 
church ; for as the household of Abraham 
was then the true church, so there is no 
doubt that the events that are chief and 
notable above others which have happened 
tous init are types tous.” Also Tholuck 
(d. A.T.im N.T. p. 39, ed. 6) and Wieseler 
understand daddAnyopovpeva as equivalent to 
But even Philo, de opif. m. 
I. p. 38. 10, puts the type not as equivalent, 
but only as similar to the allegory; and 
Josephus, Antt. prooem. 4, speaks of Moses 
as speaking ina partly allegorical sense, 
without intimating that he intended his- 
torical types. The allegory and the type 
are contrasted on the one hand with that 
which is only tAdcpata pidwv, ‘ figments 
of myths,” and on the other hand with 
that which is said é& evdetas (directly, 
expressly). But neither does a type ne- 
cessarily rest on allegorical interpreta- 
tion, nor does the allegory necessarily pre- 
suppose that what is so interpreted is a 
type; the two may be independent one 
of the other. Thus, ¢.g., the allegory of 
the name of Hagar, in Philo, Aleg. I. 
p. 185. 29, is anything but typology. See 
the passages themselves in Wetstein. At 
any rate, the allegory has a much freer 
scope, and may be handled very differently 


TUTLKw@S Acyomeva, 


In point of fact the contrast anticipated in pia pév certainly 


by different people ; ‘‘ potest alius aliud et 
argutius fingere et veri cum similitudine 
suspicari, potest aliud tertius, potest aliud 
quartus, atque ut se tulerint ingeniorum 
opinantium qualitates, ita singulae res 
possunt infinitis interpretationibus expli- 
cari,” ‘‘one can represent more skilfully 
one thing, and another, another, and re- 
gard it as a figure of the truth. A third, 
another; a fourth, another; and as the 
qualities of the mind’s thinking are dis- 
posed, so each subject can be explained 
with infinite interpretations,’ Arnobius. 
The type is a real divine preformation of a 
N. T. fact in the O. T. history. Comp. on 
Rom. v. 14; also Tholuck, /.c. p. 47 ff. But 
one fact signifies another alegorically, when 
the ideal character of the latter is shown 
as figuratively presenting itself in the 
former; in which case the significant 
fact needs not to be derived from the 
O. T., and the interpretations may be very 
various. Comp. Kleinschmidt in the Meck- 
lend. theol. Zeitschr. 1861, p. 859. Matthias, 
in the interpretation of our passage, abides 
by the wider idea of “figure, but this 
does not satisfy the strict idea of the ale- 
gorica, so faras this is the expression of an 
inner, deeper significance, —of an €eTépws 
Voovmevov, 

1 Baur, Paulus, II. p. 312, ed. 2. 

2 Calovius and others. 

3 Comp. Matt. xiii. 20, 388, e¢ al. 

4 Usteri. 

5 Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 25. 

6 Bernhardy, p. 223. 

7 Kiihner, II. p. 480, 


CHAP, IV.,, 20. 203 


follows in ver. 26, but not in conjunction with pév ; see what is said on 
ver, 26. — eric doviciay ytvvdca] bringing forth unto bondage, that is, placing 
those who belong to this covenant, by means of their so belonging, in a 
state of bondage, namely, through subjection to the Mosaic law.* The notion 
of a mother has caused the retention of the jigurative expression yevvdca. — 
qttg éotiv “Ayap| Frc, quippe quae, ‘‘which indeed,” is neither predicate * 
nor attributive definition,® as if it were written “Ayap oica, ‘‘ being Hagar ;” 
but it is the swhject, just as dra and avira, and also 7c in ver. 26. The 
name, not as yet expressed, is now emphatically added. The Sinaitic cove- 
nant is that which Hagar is in the history referred to—is allegorically iden- 
tical with Hagar. 

Ver. 25. The 7ri¢ éoriv “Ayap, just said, has now a reason assigned for it, 
Srom the identity of the name ‘' Hagar” with that of Mount Sinai. To yap 
“Ayap . . . ’ApaBia, however, is not to be placed in a parenthesis, because 
neither in the construction nor in a logical point of view does any inter- 
ruption occur ; but with ovoroyei dé a new sentence is to be commenced. 
‘* This covenant is the Hagar of that allegorical history—a fact which is con- 
JSirmed by the similarity of the name of this woman with the Arabian designation 
of Mount Sinai. Not of a different nature, however,—to indicate now the cor- 
responding relation, according to which no characteristic dissimilarity may ex- 
ist between this woman and the communitybelonging to the Sinaitic covenant, 
because otherwise that yric éoriv “Ayap would be destitute of inner truth— 
not of a different nature, however, but of a similar nature is Hagar with the 
present Jerusalem, that is, with the Jewish state; because the latter is, as 
Hagar once was, in slavery together with those who belong to it.” This para- 
phrase at the same time shows what importance belongs to the position of 
ovatoyer at the head of the sentence. — 7d yap *Ayap Suva dpoc éotw év FT. 
"AoaZ.| That the name Hagar* accorded with the Arabic name of Sinai, 
could not but be a fact welcome to the allegorizing Paul in support of his 
iT éotiv “Ayap.°-—He now writes Suva dpoc, and not époc Suva as in ver. 24, be- 
cause *Ayap and Yuva are intended to stand in juxtaposition on account of the 


Srr 


coincidence of the two names. In Arabic > means lapis, ‘‘a stone ;” 
We 


and although no further ancient evidence is preserved that the Arabs called 
Sinai xar’ éo0yfv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the stone,® yet Chrysostom in his day says 
that in their native tongue the name Sinai was thus interpreted ; and in- 
deed Biisching ’ quotes the testimony of Harant the traveller,® that the Arabs 
still give the name IHuadschar to Mount Sinai,—a statement not supported 


1 See ver. 1 ff. 

2 Bengel. 

3 As that Siadjnn, which Hagar is; so Hof- 
mann. 

470 "Ayap denotes this; see Eph. iy. 9; 
Kiuhner,. II. p. 137. 

5 Comp. John ix. 6. 

6 We may add that = occurs else- 


where as a geographical proper name in 
Arabia Petraea. Thus the Chald. Paraphr. 


always gives the name 873M to the wil- 
derness called in the Hebr.}¥W As to the 


town SS » which is, however, to be pro- 


nounced Hidschr and not Hadschr, and, on 
account of its too remote site, cannot come 
into consideration here (in opposition to 
Grotius and others), see Ewald, p. 493 f., 
and Jahrb. VIII. p. 290. 

7 Prdbeschr. V. p. 535. 

® [Who in 1598 was at Sinai, Sieffert.] 


204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 

by the evidence of any other travellers. Perhaps it was (and is) merely a 
provincial name current in the vicinity of the meuntain, easily explained 
from the granitic nature of the peaks,’ with which also the probable sig- 
nification of the Hebrew "3°D, the pointed,* harmonizes,* and which became 
known to the apostle, if not through some other channel previously, by 
means of his sojourn in Arabia (i. 17).4 It is true that the name of Hagar (139) 


does not properly correspond with the word = (14), but with Fos Sugit, 


*¢ flees ;”” but the allegorizing interpretation of names is too little bound to 
literal strictness not to find the very similarity of the word and the sub- 
stantial resemblance of sound enough for its purpose, of which we have 
still stronger and bolder examples in Matt. ii. 28, John ix. 6. Beza, Cal- 
vin, Castalio, Estius, Wolf, and others, interpret, ‘‘for Hagar is a type of 
Mount Sinaiin Arabia ;”*° but against this view the neuter 7d *Ayap is decisive. 
[See Note LXVI., p. 215 seq. ]— év ’ApaBia] not in Arabia situm, ‘‘ situated 
in Arabia” °—for how idle would be this topographical remark’ in the 
case of a mountain so universally known !—nor equivalent to apauori, so 
that ’ApaB. would be an adjective and duadéxtw would have to be supplied ;° 
but : in Arabia the name Hagar signifies the Mount Sinai.° So Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, Luther (‘‘for Agar means in Arabia the Mount Sinai’), 
Morus, Koppe, Reiche, Reithmayr, and others. —ovoroyei| The subject is, as 
Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly has it, Hagar, not Mount Sinai °—a view 
which runs entirely counter to the context, according to which the two 
women are the subjects of the allegorical interpretation, while 76 yap “Ayap 





1 Robinson, I. p. 170 f. 

2 See Knobel on Hx. p. 190. 

3 Asto the mineralogical beauty of the 
mountain, see Fraas, Aus d. Orient geolog. 
Beobacht. 1867. 

4 Comp. also Ewald, p. 495 ; Reiche, p. 63. 

5 At the same time Calvin and others re- 
mark on év “ApaBia : ‘‘ hoe est extra limites 
terra sanctae, quae symbolum est aeternae 
haereditatis,” ‘‘ This is outside the limits 
of the Holy Land, which is the symbol of 
the eternal inheritance.” Thisreference is 
also discovered by Wieseler, who, with 
Lachmann, reads only To y. Suwa pos éoriv 
ev tT. ApaB., “for the Sinai mountain dies 
beyond the Holy Land, and indeed in Arabia, 
where also the alien Hagar is at home.”’ In 
his view, Paul meant to say that, through 
their alien nature, the Sinaitic é:a3y«n and 
Hagar showed themselves to answer to 
each other, —namely, as intervenient ele- 
ments in the history of salvation. But this 
Paul has not said; the substance of it 
would have to be read between the lines. 
How very natural it would have been for 
him at least to have written, instead of or 
in addition to év r. ’ApaB., €&w (Or paxpav aro) 
THs yns Xavady, in order thus at least to give 
some intimation that the alien character was 
the point’ This also applies against the 
view of Hofmann (comp. also his Schri/t- 


bew. II. 2, p. 70 f.), who likewise follows the 
reading, omitting “Ayap, and agrees in sub- 
stance with Wieseler’s explanation, taking 
Mount Sinai as contrast to Sion, and Arabia 
as contrast to the land of promise. Comp. 
also, in opposition to this exposition, which 
imports elements wholly gratuitous, Ewald, 
Jahrb. X. p. 239. 

® Schott and older expositors. . 

7 Which is not (with Bengel) to be brought 
into an antithetical relation to ova7otyet 
6€é (the Mount Sinai is indeed situated in Ara- 
bia, but corresponds, etc.), as if it were ac- 
companied by a ev (and with the adop- 
tion of Lachmann’s reading); for in this 
ease the allegorical signification of the 
Hagar would not be based on any ground. 

8 Matthias. i 

® Observe that the apostle does not at all 
wish to say that Hagar is in the Arabic lan- 
guage generally the name of Sinai; but, on 
the contrary, by ev ty “ApaBia he character- 
izes that nameasa name used inthe country, 
provincial. Hofmann unjustly finds in the 
words according to our reading “‘ abswrd- 
ity.” 

10 Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysos- 
tom, and his followers, Thomas, Erasmus, 
Luther, Calvin, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and 
others; also Hofmann now. 


CHAP. IV., 20d. 205 


Luva bpo¢e éotwv év 7H ’ApaB. was merely a collateral remark by way of con- 
firmation. Incorrectly-also Studer and Usteri, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius,! Windischmann, Reithmayr, hold that the subject is still uia pév. 
amo dpove Suva, ‘‘one from Mount Sinai,” the Sinaitie constitution. In this 
way there would be brought out no comparison at all between the subject 
of cvorovyei and the present Jerusalem ; and yet such, according to the sig- 
nification of cvorovyeiv (see afterwards), there must necessarily be, so that in 
dovdever yap x.t.A. lies the tertium comparationis, ‘‘third object of compar- 
ison.” The Sinaitic dvajxn is not of a similar nature with the present Jeru- 
salem, but is itself the constitution of it ; on that very account, however, 
according to the allegorical comparison Hagar corresponds to the present 
Jerusalem. ovoro.yeiv means to stand in the same row,® that is, here, to 
stand in the same category,* to be of the same nature and species, cictoryov 
elvat.4 Consequently : Hagar belongs to the same category with the present 
Jerusalem, is of a like nature with it,*° hasin common with it the same 
characteristic relation, in so far namely that, as agar was a bondwoman, 
the present Jerusalem with its children is also in bondage.® Thus ovor. ex- 
presses the correspondence. _ But it is incorrect to take it as : she confronts as 
parallel.’ This must have been expressed by avtvoroyei.2 Many of those 
who regard Sinai as the subject (see above) interpret : ‘‘ it extends as far as 
Jerusalem.” ° This would have to be more exactly defined with Genebrardus, 
ad Ps. cxxxiii. 3, following out the literal meaning of the word ocvatoiyei : 
““nerpetuo dorso sese versus Sionis montes exporrigit,” ‘it extends in an un- 
broken ridge to the mountains of Zion.” But even granting the geograph- 
ical reality of the description, and setting aside the fact that Sinai is not 
the subject, Paul must have named, instead of 77 viv ‘Iepovc., Mount Zion. 
Hofmann, in reference to the position of Sinai in Arabia and of Jerusalem 
in the land of promise, interprets the expression Jocally indeed, but as in- 
dicative of the non-local relation, that the present Jerusalem belongs to the 
same category with the mountain although Arabian, which has it side by 
side on the same line in the order of the history of salvation. An artificial 
consequence of the geographical contrast introduced as regards év ’Apaj3., as 
well as of the erroneous assumption that Mount Sinai is the subject. At 
the same time a turn is given to the interpretation, as if Paul had written 
ovoToiyel Jé avT@ 7) viv ‘Iepovc. — TH viv "IepovoaAyju| does not stand in contrast 
to the former Salem,’ but in Paul’s view means the present Jerusalem 


1 Also Hofmann formerly. 

2 See Polyb. x. 21. 7, and Wetstein. 

3 avototxia, Aristot. Metaph. i. 5, pp. 986, 
1004. 

4 Theophr. ¢c. pl. vi. 4.2; Arist. Meteor.i.3; 
Lucian, ¢. hist. conscr. 43. 

5 Comp. Polyb. xiii. 8. 1: 6fova Kai cvorouxa. 

6 See below. 

7 Riickert, Winer. Comp. also Wieseler: 
“ corresponds toit ; not, however, ata dike, 
but at a different stage,” whereby the idea 
of a type is expressed. This view is not to 
be supported by Polyb. x. 21. 7, where 


ougvyovrtTas Kal cvoToLyovr Tas Stapévery MEANS 
to remain in rank and file (*‘servare ordines 
secundum wapaotatas et emiBatas,”’? Schweig- 
hiuser), so that as well the ovévyovv7es as 
the cvotorxodvtes always form one row with 
one another. 

8 Xen. Symp. 2. 20, Anab. v. 4. 12; comp. 
avtiototxos, Eur. And. 746, and av7eotorxia, 
Plut. Mor. p. 474 A. 

® Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Wolf, and 
others, 

10 Rrasmus, Michaelis. 


206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


belonging to the pre-Messianic period, as opposed to 7 ave ‘Iepove. (ver. 26), 
which after the rapovoia will take its place. See on ver. 26. Moreover, 
the present Jerusalem and its children’ represcnt the Israelitie common- 
wealth and its members.” — dovieter yap x.t.2.| namely, to the Mosaic law. 
The bondage to Rome? is not, according to the context, referred to either 
alone * or jointly.° The subject is 7 viv ‘Iepove., and not “Ayap.° Looking 
at the usage both of classical authors and the N. T., there is nothing sur- 
prising in the change of subject.” Lachmann (also Ewald) has incorrectly 
placed the words doviebec . . . ait in a parenthesis. 


Note.—If the reading of Bengel and Lachmann, 10 y. Svvd dpor éoriv év T. ’Apap., 
be adopted, the interpretation would simply be: ‘for the Sinai-Mount is in 
Arabia ;” so that év 77’ Apa3. would serve to support the allegorical relation of 
Hagar to Sinai, seeing that Hagar also was in Arabia and the ancestress of the 
Arabians. This certainly forms a ground of support much too vague, and not 
befitting the dialectic acuteness of the apostle. In the case of the Recepta also, 
év TH’ ApaB., taken as a geographical notice, is so superfluous and aimless, that 
Schott’s uncritical conjecture, treating the words To y. “Ay. 6p. &. &. év Tr. “Apa. 
as a double gloss, is not surprising. Bentley, who is followed by Mill, Proleg. 
§ 1306, even wished to retain nothing of the passage but 70 dé "Ayap ovotouyel TH 
vuv ‘Jepovo. x.T.2. Against the interpretation of év 77 Apa. by Wieseler and 
Hofmann, see above. 


Ver. 26. But altogether different from the position of the present Jerusa- 
lem is that of the wpper Jerusalem, which is free ; and this upper Jerusalem 
is our mother. — dé] places the ave ‘Iepove. in contrast with the previous 77 
viv ‘Iepove. The pia pév of ver. 24 has been left, in consequence of the 
digression occasioned by the remarks made in ver. 25, without any correla- 
tive to follow it (such as 7 dé érépa),—an omission which is quite in harmony 
with the rapid movement of Pauline thought.* He leaves it to the reader 
to form for himself the second part of the allegorical interpretation after the 
similarity of the first, and only adduces so much of it as is directly suggested 
by the contrast of the just characterized rj viv ‘Iepovc. He leaves it, there- 
fore, to the reader to supply the following thought : ‘‘ But the other cove- 
nant, which is allegorically represented in this history, is the covenant insti- 
tuted by Christ, which brings forth to freedom : this is Sarah, who is of the 
same nature with the upper Jerusalem ; for the latter is, as Sarah was, free 
with its children, and to this upper Jerusalem we Christiansas children 
belong.” —7 dé? dvw ‘Iepovcadfu] is neither the ancient Jerusalem, the Salem 
of Melchizedek,? nor Mount Zion, which is called in Josephus 7 ave 7éAcc,"° as 
among the Greeks the Acropolis at Athens was also so named." Both inter- 


1“ Inhabitants ;” see Matt. xxiii. 37, Ps. Winer, p. 586. 


Gxdixez: 8 Comp. Rom. vii. 12, e¢ al.; also Rom. 
2 Comp. Isa. xl. 2. y. 12. 
3 Pelagius. ® Oeder, Michaelis, Paulus. 
4 Castalio, Ewald. 10 See the passages in Ottii Spicil. ex Jose- 
5 Bengel. pho, p. 400 f. 
6 Cornelius & Lapide, Grotius, and others. 11 Vitringa, Elsner, Mill, Wolf, Rambach, 


7 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510 C; Moldenhauer, Zachariae. 


CHAP. IV., 26. 207 
pretations are opposed to the context, and the former to linguistic usage.’ 
The contrast between heaven and earth elsewhere conveyed by dv, as used 
by Paul (Phil. iii. 14 ; Col. iii. 2), is found here also, since 7 viv ‘Iep. is the 
earthly Jerusalem. It is true that this contrast would have been more 
accurately expressed if, instead of 7% viv ‘Tepovo., he had written rH Karo 
‘Tepove. (NUM bw ow1), “the Jerusalem below ;” but in using the vt he 
thought of the futwre Jerusalem as its contrast (Heb. xiii. 14), and after- 
wards changed his mode of representation, by conceiving the future as the 
upper: for it is the heavenly Jerusalem, called by the Rabbins ow mow 
my, “¢ Jerusalem on high,” which, according to Jewish teaching, is the 
archetype in heaven of the earthly Jerusalem, and on the establishment of 
the Messiah’s kingdom is let down to earth, in order to be the centre and 
capital of the Messianic theocracy, just as the earthly Jerusalem was the 
centre and capital of the ancient theocracy. Comp. Heb. xi. 10, xii. 22, 
xiii. 14 ; Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2.2 And as previously the present Jerusalem 
represented the Jewish divine commonwealth, so here the upper Jerusalem 
represents the Messianic theocracy, which before the rapovoia, ‘* presence or 
coming of Christ,” is the church, and after the zapovoia is the glorious kingdom 
of the Messiah. With justice, accordingly, the church on earth (not merely 
the ‘‘ecclesia triwmphans,” ‘‘church triumphant”), has at all times been 
deemed included in the heavenly Jerusalem,’ for the latter is, in relation to 
the church, its zoditevua [commonwealth, according to others : citizenship], 
which is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20). The heavenly completion of the church 
in Christ ensues at the zapovoia, in which Christ who rules in heaven will 
manifest in glory the life—hitherto hidden with Him in God *—of the com- 
munity, which is the body and rAjpeua, ‘‘fulness,” of Him its Head (Eph. i. 
22 f.). Thus the church on earth is already the theocracy of the heavenly 
Jerusalem, and has its roA/revua in heaven ; but this its cAypovouia, ‘‘inheri- 
tance,” is, until the zapovcia, only an ideal and veiled, although in hope 
assured, possession, which at the second coming of the Lord at length attains 
objective and glorious realization. It is, however, by no means to be as- 
serted that Paul entertained the sensuous Rabbinical conceptions of the 
heavenly Jerusalem ;° for he nowhere presents, or even so much as hints, at 
them, often as he speaks of the rapovoia and the consequences connected with 
it. In his view, the heavenly Jerusalem was the national setting for the 
idea—founded on the exalted Christ as its central point—of the kingdom of 
the Messiah before and after its glorious realization. — éhevépa éotw] that is, in- 
dependent of the Mosaic law (opposite of the dovdebe: in ver. 25), in free, 
moral self-determination, under the higher life-principle of the Spirit (Rom. 


1 dvw always means above. When it appears 
to mean olim, it denotes the ascending line 
of ancestry, as ¢.g. in Plat. Legg. ix. p. 880B: 
H Tarp 7H Ete avwrépw, ‘either to the father 
or one still higher.”” Theaet. p.175 B al.; the 
earlier time lying behind being regarded as 
higher (Polyb. v. 6. 1, iv. 2. 3, iv. 50. 8). 

®See generally Schoettgen, de Hieros. 
coclest. in his Horae, p. 1205 ff. ; Meuschen, 


N. T. cx Talim. ill. p. 199 ff.; Wetstein, in 
loc. ; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 211 ff. ; Ewald, 
ad Apoc. p. 11, 307. 

3 See Luther, and especially Calovius, im 
loc. 

4 See on Col. iii. 3 f. 

5 See EHisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. Il. 
p. 839 ff. 


208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


viii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 17). —7rice gor? pAtnp jor] correlative with the above- 
mentioned pera rav téxv. avta¢ ; hence, if Paul had wished to lay the stress 
upon 7jav,’ he must have made this evident by the marked position rig 7uav 
ut. &. The emphasis lies rather on #ric, that is, she who, ete. (comp. on 
ver. 24), guippe quae libera Hierosol, ‘‘since she is the free Jerusalem.” To 
this Jerusalem as our woAitevua, ‘‘ commonwealth,” we Christians belong, as 
children to their mother (Phil. iii. 20 ; Eph. ii. 19). Im bondage, it would 
not be our mother. Hofmann interprets differently : ‘‘the freedom of this 
Jerusalem may be seen in her children.” But this would be a correlative ret- 
rospective conclusion, since Paul has neither written ér: (but ric), nor has he 
expressed himself participially oboa pr. ju. pAtnp without the article is 
qualitative. That ijuov applies to the Christians generally, including also the 
Gentile Christians, is obvious of itself from the context, and does not require 
the addition of wavrwv in the Tezxtus receptus, which is defended by Ewald 
(in opposition to Reiche), to make it evident. 

Ver. 27. Proof from Scripture? that no other than this, the free Jerusalem 
(jee), is our mother. This, namely, is according to Paul the subject 
addressed, the unfruitful one, because Sarah—who, according to the alle- 
gory, answers to the heavenly Jerusalem—was, as is well known, barren. 
The historical sense of the prophecy (Isa. liv. 1, exactly according to the 
LXX.) is the joyful promise of a great increase to the depressed people of 
God in its state of freedom after the Babylonian exile. The desolate, unin- 
habited Jerusalem, which had become like an unfruitful wife, is summoned 
to rejoice, because it—and in this light, certainly, it is poetically compared 
with itself as asecond person (in opposition to Hofmann)—is to become 
more populous, more rich in children, than formerly, when it was the hus- 
band-possessing spouse (of Jehovah). The fulfilment of this Messianic 
prophecy—Messianic because pervaded by the idea of the victorious theoc- 
racy—is discerned by Paul in the great new people of God, which belongs 
to the avw ‘Iepovcadju, to this Sarah in the sense of the fulfilment, as its 
mother. Before the emergence of the Christian people of God, this 
heavenly Jerusalem was still unpeopled, childless ; it was oreipa, ‘‘ barren,” 





ov tixrovoa, ‘‘not bringing forth,” ov« ddivovoa, ‘not in travail,” poe, 
‘*desolate” (solitaria, that is, in conformity with the contrast : without 
conjugal intercourse), consequently quite the Sarah of the allegory, before 
she became the mother of Isaac. But in and with the emergence of the Chris- 
tian people of God, the avo ‘IepovcaAnu has become a fruitful mother, rejoic- 
ing over her wealth of children, richer in children than 7 viv ‘Iepovoadgu, 
this mother of the ancient people of God, which hitherto, like Hagar, had 
been May2, 7 éyovca Tov avdpa, ‘‘married.” This dry, ‘‘ husband,” is God 
(not the law, as Luther interprets), whose relation to the theocratical common- 
wealth of the old covenant is conceived as conjugal intercourse. In virtue 
of this idea, the relation of God to the viv ‘Iepoveaa#u—the latter regarded 


1 Winer, Matthias. “Jerusalem above,’’ is the allegorical 

2 For this Scriptural proof, the particular counterpart of Sarah, this ometpa 4 ov 
passage Isa. liv. 1 is selected with great  tixrovoa x.7.A, “‘ barren, not bringing forth,” 
skill and truc tact, since the avw ‘TepovoaAnp, ete. 


CHAP. IV., 28. 209 


as a woman 7 éyovca tov avdpa—is the counterpart of the relation of Abraham 
to the raidioxy, ‘‘bondwoman,” Hagar, whose descendants came into life 
xara oapxa, ‘‘ according to the flesh.” On the other hand, the relation of 
God to the avw ‘IepoveaA#u—the latter likewise regarded as a woman, who, 
however, had hitherto been oveipa «.7.4.—is the counterpart of the relation 
of Abraham to the free Sarah, whose far more numerous descendants were 
children of promise (ver. 28). -Comp. Rom. ix. 8.— 7 od rixrovea] not for 
the past participle,’ but expressing the state of the case as it stands: ‘‘ which 
does not bear,” the consequence of oreipa, sterilis, unfruitful, as Sarah was 
Mpy., “barren.” In the same way afterwards, 7 ob« ddivovea. — ppZov] dwvhy 
is usually supplied. For many instances of pjyvoue dovgv or aidfr,? to 
unchain the voice, that is, to speak aloud, see Wetstein, in loc. ; Loesner, 
Obss. p. 333 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 385, XI. p. 57, XII. p. 131. But 
since the verb alone is never thus used, it is safer to derive the supplement 
from what has preceded ; hence Kypke and Schott correctly supply ei¢gpo- 
civnv, “gladness” (rumpe jubilum, begin to rejoice), not because 137 ‘N¥9, 
“break forth into joy,” stands in the Hebrew (Schott), but because eidpo- 
sivnv flows from the previous ei¢parOnre ;* ‘‘ rejoice, let it break forth.” The 
opposite is pjyvuue xAavOudr, ‘break into weeping” (Plut. Per. 36), pyyv. 
daxptwrv vauara, ‘‘ break into streams of tears” (Soph. Trach. 919). — oreipa 
k.T.A. applies in the connection of the original text to Jerusalem, and is also 
here necessarily (see ver. 26)—according to the Messianic fulfilment of the 
prophecy, in the light of which Paul apprehends the scriptural saying—to 
be referred to Jerusalem, but to the dvw ‘Iepovoadhu, aric éoti wAtnp juor, 
whereas the 7 éyovoa tov dvdpa which is placed in comparison with it is the 
viv ‘Iepovoadfju. See above. Chrysostom and his successors, Bengel and 
others, consider that the words oreipa «.7.2. apply to the Gentile Christians 
(she who had the husband being the Jewish church) ; but against this view 
it may be urged that that jri¢ éot? wiry juov, which refers to all Christians, 
is to be proved by ver. 27.—oddd . . . paddov 7] not used instead of 
mietova 7, ‘‘more than,” which would leave the multitude of children entirely 
undetermined ; but it affirms that both had many children,—the solitary one, 
however, the greater number : for numerous are the children of the solitary 
one in a higher degree than those of her who possessed the husband. So the 
LXX. has rightly understood the Hebrew °331) 0°37. 

Ver. 28. It is not till ver. 29 that a new thought is entered on ; hence 
ver. 28 is to be regarded as a remark explaining the fulfilment of the 
prophetic utterence, which has its actual realization in the case of Christians, 
and is to be annexed to ver. 27 (by a semicolon). So correctly, in opposi- 
tion to the usual separation from ver. 27.°— But the Christians (iueic indi- 
vidualizing ; see the critical notes) are the many children of that spiritual 
Sarah, the heavenly Jerusalem! —kara "Icadx| After the manner of Isaac ; 
comp. 1 Pet. i. 15 ; and see Wetstein and Kypke, also Heindorf,* — éray- 





1 Grotius and others. 4The LXX. probably did not read 137, 
2 Eur. Suppl. 710. se 1OVars 
8 Comp. the Latin rwmpere vocem (Draken- 5 Hofmann, Ewald, Wieseler. 

borch, ad Sil. It. iv, 528). 6 Ad Plat. Gorg. p. 225 f. 


14 


210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

yedtac téxva] érayy. is emphatically prefixed : children of Abraham, who are 
not so by carnal descent like Ishmael, but by promise. So, namely, as Isaac 
was born to Abraham in virtue of the promise (ver. 23), are Christians by 
means of divine promise also children of Abraham, in virtue of the fact that 
they were promised by God to Abraham as réxva, ‘‘ children ;” without 
which promise, having reference to them, they would not stand in the rela- 
tion of sonship to Abraham. Comp. Rom. ix. 8. We must not on account 
of ver. 23 explain the expression here, any more than in Rom. ix. 8,’ as 
liberi promissi, ‘‘the children promised.” ? 

Vv. 29, 30. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this their higher state of son- 
ship, these spiritual children of Abraham are persecuted by the bodily chil- 
dren of Abraham, as was formerly the case with Isaac and Ishmael ; but 
(ver. 30) how wholly without ultimate success is, and, according to the 
Scripture, must be, this persecution! This is not a collateral trait (Hol- 
sten), but the consolatory practical result in which the allegory terminates 
—its triumphantly joyful conclusion. Comp. on ver. 31. —rére] then, namely, 
at that time when the allegorically-significant history came to pass. —6 Kata 
cdpxa yevrAbeic] see ver. 238. —édiwxe] persecuted. It is true that in Gen. xxi. 
9, Ishmael is designated only as a mocker (of Isaac).* But Paul follows the 
tradition, which, starting from the basis of that statement, went further.* 
According to Hofmann, Paul in the word d:éxew probably intends a running 
after Isaac wantonly to annoy him (just as the partisans of the law followed 
after the believing Gentiles in order to annoy them, vv. 10, 12). Quite unsup- 
ported by any historical evidence, and very inappropriate to the rapdocew of 
the Judaists (of which there is no mention here at all); comp. i. 7. — rév 
kata treipa] him that is born according to the Spirit, that is, him who was 
born in consequence of the intervening agency of the Holy Spirit (for the 
divine rvevua, as the principle of the divine promise, is instrumental in the 
efficacy of the latter). By means of the vs carnis Isaac could not have been 
born, but only by means of the vis Spiritus divini, which, operative in the 
divine promise, furnished at his procreation (Rom. iv. 17 ff.) the capacity 
of generation and conception. In fact, therefore, tov cata mvevua conveys 
the same idea as rév dud tic éxayyediac yevynbévta, ver. 23. The explanation : 
per singularem efficacitatem Dei, ‘by the unique efficaciousness of God,” ° 
compares things which are in their nature different (Luke i. 35), and is not 
verbally accurate. And Hilgenfeld unnecessarily assumes ° that the expres- 
sion is to be explained by a blending together of the ideal reference of the 


1 See in loc. 4See Beresch. R. liii. 15: Dixit Ismael 


2 Winer and others. 

3 The idea that Paul, in using édiwxe, really 
intended nothing more than this mocking 
(‘nulla enim persecutio tam molesta esse 
nobis debet, quam dum impiorum ludibriis 
videmus labefactari nostram vocationem,” 
“ For no persecution should be so grievous 
to us as that which occurs when we see our 
ealling shaken by the reproaches of the 
godless,” Calvin), is not in harmony with 
the comprehensive sense of the word. 


Tsaaco : eamus et videamus portionem nos- 
tram in agro; et tulit Ismael arcum et sa- 
gittas, et jaculatus est Isaacum et prae se 
tulit ac siluderet,” ‘‘ Ishmael said to Isaac: 
Let us go and see our portion in the field ; 
and Ishmael carried the bow and arrows, 
and shot at Isaac, and acted as though he 
were in sport.” 

5 Schott. 

® Comp. Bengel. 


CHAP. IV.5 31. PA | 


allegory to the Christians, and of its historical basis. —otrw kat viv] So also 
now the children of Abraham according to the flesh (the Jews) persecute 
those who are Abraham’s children «ava rvevywa (Christians, érayyediac téxva, 
ver. 28). Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 15. This oirw cai viv does not exclude any 
kind of persecution which the Christians suffered at the hands of the Jews ; 
but that which is intended must have been actual persecutions, such as those 
to which the Christians as a body were so generally at that time subjected 
by the Jews, and not the rapdccew on the part of the Judaists.’ — aia ri 
2éyet 4 ypady ;| triumphantly introduces the divine certainty of the want of 
success, which will attend this d:oxecv, to the destruction of the persecutors 
themselves. Observe how the importance of the utterance is brought out 
more vividly by the iterrogative announcement.* The quotation is from 
Gen. xxi. 10, almost exactly following the LXX. Instead of pera rod viow 
pov Ioaak, ‘‘ with my son Isaac,” in the LXX.,* Paul has written pera rod viow 
THe édevdépac, not accidentally, but in order to give prominence to the con- 
trast, which significantly refers back to the chief point of the allegory (comp. 
ver. 22). — éxBate x.t.A.] The words of Sarah to Abraham (which, however, 
in Gen. xxi. 12 are expressly approved by God and confirmed with a view 
to fulfilment), requiring the expulsion of Hagar and her son from the house. 
From this, looking to the scope of the allegory, the Galatians are to infer 
the exclusion of the non-free Jews, who were now persecuting the free 
Christians, from the people of God. This exclusion already actually exists 
even in the present aidv, in so far as the true Israel which is free from the 
law (the Icpa7A rod Ocod, vi. 16) has taken the place of the ancient people 
of God, and will attain its perfect realization at the rapovaia, ‘‘ coming of 
Christ,” when none but the free Christian family of God will share in the 
kAnpovouta, ‘‘ inheritance,” of eternal Messianic salvation. Comp. iii. 18, 29. 
According to Hofmann, * the meaning is, that as Abraham separated Ishmael 
from Isaac, so also the readers are to dismiss from among them, as unentitled 
to share in their inheritance, those who desired to force upon them their 
own legalism ; the Christian body ought to remain wndisturbed by such per- 
sons. This weakening of the idea is impossible with a correct conception 
of didevy in ver. 29 ; the sure divine Nemesis against the persecutors must be 
meant—the divine éxdixyorc, ‘‘ vengeance” (Luke xviii. 7 f.; 2 comp. Thess. i. 
6, 8). — ov yap ju} KAnpov] prefixed with great emphasis ; the son of the bond- 
woman shall assuredly not inherit.’ As to the exclusion, according to the 
Israelite law, of the children of a concubine from the right of inheritance, 
see Selden, de success. ad leg. Hebr. p. 28 ; Saalschiitz, WM. R. p. 831 ; Ewald, 
Alterth. p. 266. [See Note LXVIL., p. 216.] 

Ver. 31 is usually looked upon as the keystone, as the final result of the 
previous discourse. ‘‘ Applicat historiam et allegoriam, et summam absolvit 
brevi conclusione,” ‘‘ He applies the history and allegory, and brings it to a 
close in a brief conclusion,” Luther, 1519. But so taken, the purport of ver, 


1 Hofmann; see on édtwxe, 3 Which therefore D* E? F G, codd. of 
2 Comp. Rom. iv. 3, x. 8, xi. 2, 4; Dissen, the Itala, and some Fathers read also here. 
ad Dem. de cor. p. 186, 347; Blomfield, 4 Comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. V1. 


Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1013. 5 Comp. Gen. xxv. 5 f. 


212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


81 appears to express far too little, and to be feeble, because it has been 
already more than once implied in what precedes (see vv. 26, 28). We do 
not get rid of this incongruity, even if with Rickert we prefer the reading 
jusic dé, also approved by Hofmann (see the crit. notes), and assume the 
tacit inference : ‘‘consequently the inheritance cannot escape us, expulsion 
does not affect us.” For, after the whole argument previously developed, 
any such express application of ver. 30 to Christians would have been entire- 
ly superfluous ; no reader needed it, in order clearly to discern and deeply 
to feel the certainty of victory conveyed in ver. 30 ; hence ver. 31 would be 
halting and without force. No ; ver. 31 begins a new section.’ The allegor- 
ical instruction, which from ver. 22 onwards Paul has given, comes to a 
close forcibly and appropriately with the triumphant language of Scripture 
in ver. 30 ; and now Paul will follow it up by the exhortation to stand fast 
in their Christian liberty (v. 1). But first of all, as a basis for this exhorta- 
tion, he prefixes to it the proposition——resulting from the previous’ instruc- 
tion—which forms the ‘‘ pith of the allegory,” * and exactly as such is fitted 
to be the theoretical principle placed at the head of the practical course of 
action to be required in the sequel, ver. 31. This proposition is then fol- 
lowed by r@ éAevbepia nude Xproroc HAcvlépwoev, V. 1, which very forcibly serves 
as a medium of transition to the direct summons orfxere oiv. ‘* Therefore, 
brethren, —seeing that our position is such as results from this allegory,—ie 
are not children of a bond-woman (like the Jews), but of the free woman ; for 
Sreedom Christ has made us free; stand therefore fast,” etc. 


Nores By AMERICAN EDIToR. 


LIII. Ver. 1. vareoc. 


Nyc is the etymological equivalent of the Latin infans (N-éroc—in fans, 
in both cases negativing the idea of speech. Hence the word has here the 
force of the technical legal ‘‘ infant,’’ viz., a minor, Liddell and Scott find the 
meaning of ‘‘ one still unfit to bear arms’’ in Hom. JI. i. 186 ; ix. 440. 


LIV. Ver. 4. yevduevoy tro véuov. 


The application of this passage, rejected by Meyer, is thus stated by Philippi : 
«From the strict, even emphatic correspondence in the expression of thesis 
and antithesis, it manifestly follows that the Son of God was under the law in 
the same way as was Israel, in order to redeem Israel from slavery to the law, 
and to introduce it into the adoption of God’s children. But in its youth, like 
a minor to pedagogues, Israel was subject to the ordinances of the law demand- 
ing fulfilment, corresponding to which the redeeming work of the Son of God 
is to be regarded as a vicarious fulfilment of the law, and in this connection 
his atoning death appears of itself as the completion of his obedience rendered 
to the demands of the law (his yevéo8a: ird véuov), The passages cited, viz., 


1 Comp. Lachmann, de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann. 2 Holsten. 


NOTES. 213 


Matt. xx. 28; John iv. 34; Phil. i. 8; Gal. iv. 4; cf. Heb. v. 7, 8, treat the 
Lord’s death as the culmination of His entire obedience of life, and represent 
the life, passion and death of the Redeemer under a point of view entirely in- 
divisible, which is none other than that of the vicarious fulfilment of the law. 
he vicarious obedience of life, in distinction from the vicarious surrender of 
life, in which it ceases, is typically prefigured in the O. T. For the priest 
was the substitute of the people accepted of God, not only by his presentation 
of the offering, but already in the Levitical purity and spotlessness of his 
nature, life and conversation.’’ Aurchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. 2 : 296 sq. 


LY. Ver. 6. 7d mvedpa rov viov. 


Meyer does not express all that is contained in the words ‘‘the Spirit of His 
Son.’ ‘If in John xiy. 16 only the procession of the Spirit from the Father 
is treated of, yet He proceeds not only from the Father through the Son, but 
also from the Son Himself. ‘For he shall receive of mine,’ says the Lord, 
John xvi. 14 ; andasthe Father gives and sends Him, so also does the Son. Cf. 
Matt. iii. 11; John i. 33; Acts ii, 33, possibly also John vii. 38, 39. ‘‘ Receive 
ye the Holy Ghost.’’ With these words He Himself imparts the spirit to His 
disciples. In Rom. viii. 9 the Spirit of God is also called the Spirit of Christ ; 
in Phil. i. 19, the Spirit of Jesus Christ ; in 2 Cor. iii. 17, the Spirit of the 
Lord ; in Gal. iv. 6, the Spirit of His Son ; and in Rey. xxii. 1, a stream of 
living water (cf. John vii. 38, 39 ; also iv. 14) proceeds from the throne of God 
and of the Lamb. The Spirit is accordingly just as much the possession of 
the Son as of the Father.’’ (Philippi’s Airchliche Glaubenslehre, ii. 222.) 


LVI. Ver. 8. roic dicet py odor Geoic. 


Sieffert cannot appreciate any change of meaning, resulting from the transfer 
of the 7 from before the @vcev, as in the text. recept. to before oto, as in best 
codices. In either case a pure negative is expressed that the false gods are 
not gods in reality, and there is nothing implied on either side of the question 
as to whether they are pure fiction or have an dbjective existence as demonia. 
This must be determined from other passages, 1 Cor. viii. 4, x. 19, 20. 


LVII. Ver. 9. yvovrec. 


While Meyer’s disproof of Olshausen’s distinction is conclusive, that of 
Lightfoot must be accepted : ‘‘ While vida, I know, refers to the knowledge of 
facts absolutely, ywwaoxw, I recognize, being relative, gives prominence either 
to the attainment or the manifestation of the knowledge.’’ So Westcott on1 John 
ii. 29: ‘* Knowledge which is absolute (eid7re) becomes the basis of knowledge 
that is realized in observation (yvaoxere).’’ The same distinction is observed 
in classical Greek. Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon (under yyvionw) : ‘The strict 
distinction seems to be that the former class, éyvi«evar, novisse, etc., means to 
know by observation, the latter eidévai, scire, etc., to know by reflection. Thu- 
eydides i. 69: éy4 0’ o0i6’ bTt yeyvdckete TovTUY arartec,” ‘‘I know that ye all 
have come to know this one.’’ The same distinction underlies the German 
Kennen and Wissen. It is recognized in the Revised Version by the render- 
ing: ‘* But now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known of God.” 


214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


LVIII. Ver. 9. yvwobévrec 5x0 cod. 


Sieffert’s exceptions to Meyer’s argument seem invalid ; but a more careful 
observance of the distinction between the two words ‘‘to know,” used in verses 
8 and 9, makes the argument clearer, as exhibited in a compressed form by 
Sanday : ‘‘ In speaking of the Galatians as ‘coming to know’ God, it might 
seem as if too much stress was laid on the human side of the process, and 
therefore, by way of correction, the apostle presents also the divine side. 
Any trne and saving knowledge of God has for its converse the ‘ being known 
of God,’ i.e., recognition by God and acceptance by Him, such as is involved in 
the admission of the believer into the Messianic kingdom.” 


LIX. Ver. 12. yiveobe ac éyo. 


Such an appeal, however, implies no yielding of the principle involved. 
The argument is well paraphrased by Lightfoot: ‘‘I gave up all those time- 
honored customs, all those dear associations of race to become like you. I 
have lived as a Gentile to please you Gentiles. Will you then abandon me, 
when I have abandoned all for you ?” 


LX. Ver. 14. oidate dé OTe k.T.A. 


In reply, Sieffert defends Lachmann and Buttmann by maintaining that 
there is no flaw in the discourse here, which assumes an abrupt character as 
frequently, because of the deep emotion of the apostle ; that in vv. 10-12 there 
is a succession of disjointed sentences, and that in chap. ii. 21 asyndeton in 
beginning of sentence occurs. He proposes this paraphrase: ‘‘ Ye know how 
through infirmity of the flesh I preached, etc., and how ye were put to the test 
in my flesh.”’ 

LXI. Ver. 14. eferricarte. 


Marginal reading of Revised Version: ‘‘ spat owt.’’ Lightfoot : ‘‘ Ye did not 
treat with contemptuous indifference or active loathing.’’ 


LXIT. Ver. 15. rove d¢8adpove tudor. 

Eadie (pp. 329-341) has an excursus on Paul’s infirmity. The various views are 
classified. I. The carnal style of his preaching (Jerome). II. Persecution 
(Chrysostom, Eusebius of Emessa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Ambrosiast ; also Calvin, Beza, Fritzsche, Schrader, Ham- 
mond, Reiche). III. Inner temptation. 1. To unbelief, stirring up of re- 
maining sin, pangs of sorrow on account of his past life (Gerson, Luther, 
Calvin, Osiander, Calovius). 2. To incontinence (Augustine, Jerome, Gregory 
the Great, Salvian, Thomas Aquinas, Bede, Lyra, Bellarmine, Estius, a Lapide, 
Bisping) ; against which (a) such would not be given by God. (b) Nor could 
he have gloried in this, 2 Cor. xii. 9. (c) Nor would this inner struggle have ex- 
posed him to scorn or aversion. (d) He declares his perfect freedom from 
such temptations, 1 Cor. vii. 7. Luther: ‘‘ Ah no, dear Paul; it was no such 
trial as afflicted thee.’’ IV. Some painful and acute corporeal malady, which 
could not be concealed, but had a tendency to induce loathing (Flatt, Billroth, 
Emmerling, Rickert, Meyer, de Wette, Lightfoot, Alford, Howson, Chandler, 
Bottger, Eadie). Against the view that it was a malady of the eyes, among 


NOTES. 215 


other arguments, it is urged: (a) The translation, ver. 15, ‘‘your eyes,’’ is un- 
emphatic, not ‘‘ your own eyes.’’ (b) Defect of vision would not induce the 
loathing of ver. 14. (c) The thorn was given fourteen years before he wrote 
2 Cor. ; but his conversion was much earlier. (d) Arguments to prove that he was 
permanently blinded are untrustworthy. Other conjectures concerning specific 
affection : hypochondriacal melancholy, haemorrhoids, kidney-disease, gout, 
the stone, severe headache, epilepsy. Each must be tested by the loathing 
mentioned in this epistle. 


LXIIL. ver. 17. iva aitode dydovte. 


Such adverbial force of iva as that proposed by Meyer is without an instance 
in either the LXX. or N. T. The same use of iva with indicative occurs also in 
1 Cor. iv. 6. Unjustified by classical Greek, Winer declares that ‘‘in later 
works it occurs so frequently as to preclude the supposition that every instance 
is a mistake of transcribers.’’ The process of Meyer’s interpretation from that 
of the fourth to the fifth edition shows how unnatural the application. Besides, 
the telic and the adverbial iva are in reality the same word, and the attention 
must be confined here altogether to the difference of moods. Winer’s remark, 
that in both passages the verb after iva is one ending in ow, is worthy of note. 
Hence Buttmann’s hypothesis that the present of this class of verbs has with 
iva the force of the future. Sieffert, in common with almost all interpreters, 
takes issue with Meyer. 


LXIV. ver. 21. rdv vouov otk axovere. 


There seems no reason to depart from the simpler and ordinarily received 
meaning : ‘* Will ye not listen to the law?’ Argued in Ellicott, with whom 
agree Alford, Schmoller, Eadie, Lightfoot and Sanday. 


LXV. ver. 24. éorw ddAnyopodbmeva. 


Sieffert adds, instead of what follows in Meyer: ‘‘ But whether he ascribed 
the latter to all the details of his exposition is, nevertheless, a question. In 
any event Meyer’s assertion is incorrect that Paul has raised this allegory to 
the keystone of his whole antinomistic reasoning, etc. On the contrary, 
Schott’s judgment is perfectly apposite. For the proper doctrinal demonstra- 
tion is concluded already in chap. iv. 7, while the allegory is introduced into 
the midst of the personal admonition to Christian freedom beginning already 
in ch. iv. 8. (iv. 8-20, v. 1-12), and is expressly designated (v. 21) as in- 
tended for the special practical wants of the readers . . . Meyer’s assertion, 
that the argument falls wholly to the ground as a real proof in the view of a 


faith not associated with Rabbinical training, pertains of course to the alle- 
gorical form of the proof.”’ 


LXVI. ver. 25. 76 “Ayap. 


“If the word Hagar be omitted [according to 8 C F G17, the old Latin, Vul- 
gate, Aethiopic, and Armenian versions ; Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril, Damas- 
cenus, Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, Pelagius, Pri- 
marius, and probably all the Latin Fathers’’], the passage is capable of a very 


216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


easy and natural interpretation : ‘Sinai,’ St. Paul argues, ‘is situated in 
Arabia, the country of Hagar’s descendants, the land of bond-slaves.’ And such, 
too, seems to be the most probable account of his meaning, even though with the 
received text we retain Hagar: ‘This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,’ i.e., it 
represents Mount Sinai, because Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land of Hagar 
and her descendants. It is not 7 *Ayap, the woman Hagar, but To "Ayap, the 
thing Hagar, the Hagar of the allegory, the Hagar which is under discussion.” 
See the very learned and minute examination of this passage in the special ex- 
cursus, pp. 192-200 of Bp. Lightfoot’s commentary, from which the above is 
taken. In it will be found Philo’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah. 


LXVII. ver. 29. 


The opinion of Sieffert is worthy of note, that the main object of the apostle 
is to show how the parallel subsisting between Hagar and Sarah is also appli- 
cable to their sons, Ishmael and Isaac, to whom also the allegory is pertinent. 


CHAP. V. rw 


8 CHAPTER YV. 


Ver. 1. 1H EAevdepia, 7 jude Xpiotoc HAevfépwoe, oTnkeTte] So Griesb. (reading, 
however, Xprord¢ jude), Riick., Tisch.(1859), Wieseler. But Elz., Matth., Winer, 
Rinck, Reiche, read 77 édevfepia odv, 7 Xproto¢ nude nAevbépuce, ornkeTe. Lachm., 
followed by Usteri, reads t7 éAevOepia ude Xpioroe HAEvOépwoer. oTHKETE ObV, Which 
was also approved of by Mill, Bengel, Griesb. [Eadie, Tisch. (1872)]; and 
Winer does not reject it. Scholz gives rj éAevOepia, 4 Xpiotdc jude jAevbépwoe, 
otnkete odv. Schott lastly, following Rinck, joins 77 éAevdepia, 7 jude Xproro¢ 
nAevbépwoev to iv. 31, and begins the new sentence with oryxere odv. So also 
Ewald. Lachmann’s reading, which is also followed by Hofmann, must be 
held to be the original one : (1) because amidst the numerous variations it has 
a decided preponderance of testimony in its favor, for 7 is wanting in A BC D* 
Sand 9 min., Dam., and ody after orjxere is written in A B C D* (in the Greek) 
EF GWS and some 10 min., Copt. Goth. Aeth. Boern. Vulg. ms. Cyr. Bas. ms. 
Aug. Ambrosiast. ; (2) because from it the origin of the rest of the readings 
can be explained easily, naturally, and without perjudice to the witnesses— 
namely, from the endeavor to connect r7 éAev8, yu. X. 7Aev9. immediately with 
iy. 31. Thus in some cases T7 was merely changed into 7 (I G, It. Vulg. Goth. 
and Fathers) ; in others 7 was inserted before judc (Griesb.), allowing rf to re- 
main. The relative thus introduced led others, who had in view the right con- 
nection with oryxeTe, either to omit the ovv (after oryxere), which the presence 
of the relative rendered awkward (EK. Vulg. It. Syr. p. Fathers ; Griesb., Riick., 
Tisch.), or to place it immediately after eAevbepig (C*** K L, min., Fathers ; 
Elz). Lastly, the transposition Xpiord¢ qud¢ was an involuntary expedient to 
place the subject first, but is condemned by the decisive counter-weight of the 
evidence. It is a dubious view which derives the different readings of our 
passage from the accidental omission in writing of H before Hwac (Tisch., Wiese- 
ler), especially since very ancient witnesses, in which 7 is wanting, read not 
nude Xpiotic, but Xpioro¢e jude (as C L 8** Marcion, Chrys.).—Ver. 3. raAw] is 
wanting in D* FG, 73, 74, 76, It. Chrys. Theophyl. Victorin. Jerome, Aug. Am- 
brosiast. The omission is caused by the similarity of the ravri which follows. 
—Ver. 7. évéxowe] The Elz. reading dvéxowe is opposed to all the uncials and 
most min., and is therefore rightly rejected by Grot., Mill., Bengel, Matth., 
Lachm., Tisch., Reiche, whereas Usteri sought very feebly to defend it. — The 
7m Which follows is wanting in A B &*. But the article forms a necessary part 
of the idea (comp. ii. 5, 14), and the omission must be looked upon as a mere 
error in copying. Without just ground, Semler and Koppe consider the whole 
TH aAnO. uy re(Hecbu: to be not genuine ; and the latter is disposed, instead of 
it, to defend pydevi reifecbe, which is found in F G, codd. Lat. in Jer. and some 
vss. and Fathers, after we/f<oa:, but is manifestly a gloss annexed to the fol- 
lowing 7 wetouovy «.7.A. Still more arbitrarily, Schott holds the whole of ver. 7 
to be an inserted gloss. —- Ver. 9. Guuoi] D* E, Vulg. Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in 
Jer. and Sedul., and several Fathers, read dodjoi. Approved by Mill. and 


218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 

Valck. Schol. II. p. 178. An interpretation, because in this passage the leaven 
represents something corrupting (otherwise in Matt. xiii. 33). Comp. on 
1 Cor. v. 6. — Ver. 14. év év; Adyw] Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) read iuiv, and 
D* E F G, It. Ambrosiast. have év iyiv év évi Adyw. Marcion’s reading is of an- 
tinomistic origin (hence he also omitted the following év 7») ; but the duiv in- 
troduced by it became subsequently blended with the original text. — rAypeirar] 
Defended by Reiche ; but A BC 8, min., Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) 
Damasce. Aug. read retAnpwrat. Justly ; the meaning of the perfect (which is 
also adopted by Lachm., Riick., Schott, Tisch.) was not apprehended by me- 
chanical transcribers, —ceavrov] Elz., Matth., Schott, read gavrév. Certainly in 
opposition to ABC DEK 8, min., and Greek Fathers ; but the pronoun of 
the second person was very likely to occur to the copyists (in the LXX. Lev. 
xix. 18, there is the same variety of readings), and indeed the final letter of the 
foregoing o¢ might easily lend support to the ceav7év : hence éavrév is to be re- 
stored, in opposition to Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., and others. Comp. on 
Rom. xiii. 9.—Ver. 17. ravra dé] Lachm. and Schott [Tisch. 1872] read rabra yap, 
following 8* B D* E F G*, 17, Copt. Vulg. It. and some Fathers. Looking 
at this preponderance of attestation, and seeing that the continuative dé might 
easily appear more suitable, ydp is to be preferred. — Ver. 19 f. yoryeia] is 
wanting before ropy. in A BC 8 *, min., and many vss. and Fathers; 76, 115, 
Epiph. Chrys. Theophyl. have it after zopveia. In opposition to Reiche, but 
with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, Schott, Tisch., and others, it is to be deleted, 
since it has been introduced, although at a very early date (It. Or.), most 
probably by the juxtaposition of the two words in other passages (Matt. xv. 19 ; 
Mark vii. 21 ; comp. Hos. ii. 2), well known to the transcribers. — épeve, C7Aoe] 
Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular, following weighty evidence ; the plurals 
were introduced in conformity to the adjoining. —- Ver. 21. ¢évo:] is wanting 
in B &, 17, 33, 35, 57, 73, and several Fathers, but inno version. Rejected by 
Mill., Seml., and Koppe, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. On account 
of the similarity of sound with the preceding word it might just as easily be 
omitted, as it might be added from Rom. i. 29. Hence the preponderance of 
witnesses determines the point, and that in favor of the retention. 


ConTENTs. — Exhortation to steadfastness in Christian freedom, and warn- 
ing against the opposite course. If they allowed themselves to be circum- 
cised, Christ would profit them nothing, and they would be bound to the 
law as a whole ; by legal justification they would be severed from Christ and_ 
from grace, as is proved by the nature of Christian righteousness (vv. 1-6). 
Complaint and warning on account of the apostasy of the readers, respecting 
whom, however, Paul cherishes good confidence ; whereas he threatens 
judgment against the seducers, whose teaching as to circumcision is in no 
sense his (vv. 7-12). A warning against the abuse, and an exhortation to 
the right use, of Christian freedom, which consists in a demeanor actuated 
by mutual love (vv. 138-15) ; whereupon he then enters into a detailed ex- 
planation to the effect that the Holy Spirit, and not the flesh, must be the 
guiding power of their conduct (vv. 16-25). After this, special moral ex- 
hortations begin (ver. 26). 

Ver. 1. Th érevfepia nude Xpiotice HAevdépwoev] On this reading,’ see the 
critical notes. The sentence forms, with iv. 31, the basis of the exhortation 


CHAP. Y., I. 219 
which follows, orfxere obv x.7.2. See on iv. 31. Por freedom, in order that 
we should be free and should remain so, that we should not again become 
subject to bondage, Christ has set us free (iv. 1—7), namely, from the bondage 
of the orocyeia roi Kéopov (iv. 3). The dative rf éAev8. is therefore commodi, 
not instrumenti.? By so taking it, and by attending to the emphasis, which 
lies not on Xpcordc, but on the ry éAevsepia following immediately after rij¢ 
édevbépac in iv. 31, we obviate entirely the objection of Riickert * that Paul 
must have written : 
rabrn, or fv éyouev, or some other addition of the kind. — orjxere ody] stand 
Sast therefore, namely, in the freedom, which is to be inferred from what 
goes before ; hence the absence of connection with 7H éAev#. does not pro- 
duce any obscurity or abruptness.* On the absolute orjxere, which obtains 
its reference from the context, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15. —xai wy wadw x.7.2.] 
and be not again held in a yoke of bondage. Previously they had been (most 
of them) in the yoke of heathenism ; now they were on the point of being 
held in the yoke of Mosaism (only another kind of the orovyeia Tov Kécpov). 
The yoke is conceived as laid on the neck: Acts xv. 10 ; Ecclus. li. 26; 
Dem. 322.12; Hom. H. Cer. 217. Asto wédv, comp. on iv. 9.  dovieiag 
denotes the characteristic quality belonging to the yoke.® — évéyec#a, with 
the dative ® or with év,” is the proper expression for those who are held either 
in a physical (net or the like) or ethical (law, dogma, emotion, sin, or the 
like) restriction of liberty, so that they cannot get out.* Here, on account 
of the idea of a yoke, the reference is physical, but used as a figurative repre- 
sentation for that which is mental, which affects the conscience. 


X. yuac éAevdepia HAevbépwoev, OY Eig éAevd., OY TH éAevO. 


Note.—If we take the reading of the Recepta, and of Griesbach and his fol- 
lowers (see the critical notes), we must explain it: ‘* In respect the freedom of 
[therefore], for which Christ has set us free, stand fast, and become not again, ete. !’’ 
—so that 7 éAevfepia is to be taken like 79 miorec in 2 Cor. i. 24 and Rom. iv. 
20, and 7 as the dative commodi (Morus, Winer, Reiche). 7 might also (with the 
Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Riickert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
and many others) be taken as ablative (instrumentally) : ‘‘ qua nos liberavit,”’ 
“with which he has freed you,”’ after the analogy of the classical expressions 
Gv Biv, boat date x.7.2, (Bernhardy, p. 107; Lobeck, Paral. p. 528 ff.), and of 
the frequent use both in the LXX. and the N. T. (Winer, p. 434) of ‘* cognate” 
nouns in the dative. But this mode of expression does not occur elsewhere with 
Paul, not even in 1 Thess, iii. 9. According to Schott, Ewald, and Matthias, 
who join it to iv. 31 (see the critical notes), we get the meaning: ‘‘ We are not 
children of abond-maid, but of the free woman through the freedom, with which Christ 
made us free; stand fast therefore.’ Thus rq éAevfepia 4 nudc Xpiot. HAev9. be- 
comes a self-evident appendage ; and Xprordé¢ receives an emphasis, just as in 
iii. 13, which its position does not warrant. 


1 Of. ver. 13; John viii. 36. 

2 Comp. also Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 155; 
Holsten, Hofmann, Reithmayr. 

3 Comp. Matthies and Olshausen. 

4 In opposition to Reiche. 

5 Comp. Soph. Aj. 924: mpods ota SovAcias 
Guya xwpovmer. Eur. Or. 1330; Plat. Legg. 


vi. p. 770 E: SovAevoy Gvyov, Hp. 8, p. 354 D; 
Dem. 3822. 12; Herod. vii. 8. 

6 Dem. 1231. 15; 2 Macc. v. 18; 8 Macc. 
vi. 10. 

7 Dem. 1069. 9. 

8 See Kypke in loc., and Markland ad Lys. 
V. p. 87, Reisk. 


220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Ver. 2. Paul now in a warning tone reveals to them the fearful danger to 
which they are exposed. This he does by the address ide in the singular,' 
exciting the special attention of every individual reader, and with the ener- 
getic, defiant interposition of his personal authority : éyo Mavaoc, on which 
Theophylact well remarks : 77 Tov oixeiov mpooorov agvoniotiav avti mdone amo- 
deiZewe tiOnor, ‘Instead of all demonstration he presents the trustworthiness 
of his own person.” ? — éav repitéuvycbe] To be pronounced with special 
emphasis. The readers stood now on the very verge of obeying thus far— 
and therefore to the utmost—the suggestions of the false apostles in taking 
upon them the yoke of the law, after having already consented to prelimi- 
nary isolated acts of legal observance (iv. 10). — Xpucroc iuac ovdév aderjoer| 
comp. ii. 21. Xprord¢ is emphatically placed first, and immediately after 
mepit. Chrysostom, moreover, aptly remarks: 6 repitepvouevog ae véomov 
Sedotkag mepitéuverat, 6 dé dedorKOG arioTel TH Ovvdper THC Yapitoc, 6 dé antoTav 
obdev Kepdalver rapa THE axvoTovuévnc, ‘‘ He who is circumcised is circumcised 
as fearing the law, but he who fears the law distrusts the power of grace, 
and he who distrusts gains nothing from that which he distrusts.” On such 
a footing Christ cannot be Christ, the Mediator of salvation. Paul’s judg- 
ment presupposes that circumcision is adopted, not as a condition of a holy 
life,* but as a condition of salvation, which was the question raised among the 
Galatians. The future, ¢eAgoer, which is explained by others ° as referring 
to the consequence generally, points to the nearness of the Parousia and 
the decision of the judgment. Comp. ver. 5: éArida duxatoobyyc, Just as 
previously the idea of the kAypovouia in iv. 380. 

Ver. 3. With regard to the judgment just expressed, Xpiord¢ ovdév tude 
ageAfoet, Paul now, with increasing emotion (yapripoya:, tavti avOp. repit.), 
gives an explanation (vv. 8, 4) which clearly discloses the entire certainty 
of this negation. —The dé is not potius,® because it is not preceded by any 
antagonistic assertion, but is the autem which leads on to more detailed 
information.’ — papripoua] in the sense of vaptupd, as in Acts xx. 26 ; Eph. 
iv. 17 ; Joseph. Bell. iii. 8. 3; and also Plat. Phil. p. 47 D, while in classi- 
cal authors it usually means to summon as a witness and obtestor, Paul testi- 
jies that which with divine certainty he knows. The context does not war- 
rant us to supply 6eév, with Bretschneider and Hilgenfeld. — raAw] not con- 
tra, ‘‘against,” ® which is never its meaning,® but again, not however in the 
sense that ver. 3 is described as a repetition of what was said in ver. 2,” 
which it is not ; nor in the sense that Paul is thinking merely of the testify- 
ing in itself, and not of its pwrport,"—an interpretation which cannot but be 
the less natural, the more necessarily as that which is attested wé/vv stands 
in essential inner connection with the axiom which had been previously ex- 


1 Comp. Soph. Zach. 824. § Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Koppe, Wahl; 

2 Comp. 2 Cor. x. 1; Eph. fii. 1; Col. i. 23. comp. Usteri. 

3 Holsten. ® See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 166 f. 

4ii.8,5; Acts xv. 1, xvi. 3. Comp. Lech- 10 Calvin, Castalio, Calovius, Wolf, Zach- 
ler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 248. ariae, Paulus, and others. 

5 De Wette, Hofmann, and most. 11 Hofmann ; comp. Fritzsche, Winer, de 

6 Schott. Wette. 


7 Herm. ad Viger. p. 845. 


CHAP. Y., 4. A221 


pressed (‘‘ probatio est proximae sententiae sumta ez loco repugnantium,” ‘‘ The 
proof of the next sentence is derived from the topic of things that conflict,” 
Calvin); but in the sense that Paul calls to the remembrance of his readers his 
last presence among them (the second), when he had already orally assured 
them of what he here expresses.! Comp. oni. 9, iv. 16. — xavri avp. repit. | 
stands in a climactic relation to the foregoing éuiv, remorselessly embracing 
all: to every one 1 testify, so that no one may fancy himself excluded from 
the bearing of the statement. According to Chrysostom and Theophylact, 
with whom Schott and others agree, Paul has wished to avoid the appearance 
kar’ éyOpav tavra Aéyeoac ; but in this view the whole climactic force of the 
address is misunderstood, —é4ov] has the emphasis.? Circumcision binds 
the man who accepts it to obey the whole law, because it makes him a full 
member of the covenant of the law, a proselyte of righteousness, and the 
law requires from those who are bound to it its entire fulfilment (iii. 10). 
Probably the pseudo-apostles had sought at least to conceal or to weaken 
this true and—since no one is able wholly to keep the law,*—yet so fearful 
consequence of accepting circumcision, as if faith in Christ and acceptance of 
circumcision might be compatible with one another. On the contrary, Paul 
proclaims the decisive aut... aut.* The state of the man who allows him- 
self to be circumcised stands in a relation contradictory to the state of grace.° 

Ver. 4. But whosoever is justified through the law—a way of justification 
which necessarily follows from the already mentioned obligation—is sepa- 
rated from Christ, etc. A complete explanation is thus given as to the 
Xpiori¢e buac ovdév agdeAgoer. Asyndetic (without dé), and reverting to the 
second person, the language of Paul is the more emphatic and vivid. — 
katnpynnre| In the first clause the stress is laid upon the dread separation 
which has befallen them, in the second on the benefit thereby lost, 
striking alternation of emphasis. 








a 
The pregnant expression, katapyeicfar ard 
tivoc,®° is to be resolved into xatapyeicba Kat yopilecbar ard tivoc, that is, to 
come to nothing in regard to the relation hitherto subsisting with any one, so that 
we are parted from him." Hence the sense is: your connection with Christ is 
annulled, cancelled: arexérnre.* Justification by the law and justification for 
Christ’s sake are in truth opposita, ‘‘ opposites ” (works—faith), so that the one 
excludes the other. —oirwec év vduq Sixatovobe| ye who are being justified 
through the law. The directly assertive and present dicarovobe is said from the 
mental standpoint of the subjects concerned, in whose view of the matter 
the way of salvation is this : ‘‘ through the law, with which our conduct 
agrees (comp. ili. 11), we become just before God.” Hence the concrete 
statement is not to be weakened either by taking dicacovcha in the sense of 
tyreiv dixacovcba, 11. 17,° or by attributing a hypothetical sense to oitivec." 


1 Moldenhauer, Flatt, Riickert, Olshau- 
sen, Wieseler. 

2 Comp. Jas. ii. 10. 

3 Acts xiii. 38, xv. 10; Rom. viii. 3. 


4 Aut... autindicates an exclusive alter- 


native. If one member be true, the other 
must be false. 
5 Comp. Rom. vi. 14 f., xi. 6. 


6 Comp. Rom. ix. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 3; see gen- 
erally, Fritzsche ad Rom. II. p. 250. 

7 Just the same in Rom. vii. 2, 6. 

5 Oecumenius. 

® Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earli- 
er expositors. 

10 Hofmann, who erroneously compares 
Thue, v.16. 1. 


Ra2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
Whomsoever Paul hits with his oitivec x.7.4., he also means. — the yapitoc 
iSexécate| that is, ye have forfeited the relation of being objects of divine 
grace. The opposite : i7d yapw sivac (Rom. vi. 14), to which divine grace 
faith has led (Rom. v. 2).!_ Whoever becomes righteous by obedience to the 
law, becomes so no longer by the grace of God,’ but by works acccord- 
ing to desert ;? so that thus his relation of grace towards God (which is 
capable of being lost) has ceased. 

Ver. 5. Ground e contrario, ‘‘ on the contrary,” for the judgment passed in 
ver. 4 on those becoming righteous by the law ; derived, not generally from | 
what makes up the essence of the Christian state,* but specially from the 
specific way in which Paul and those like him expect to be justified. The 
reasoning presupposes the certainity, of which the apostle was conscious, 
that the jueic are those who are not separated from Christ and have not fallen — 
from grace, — jueic] we, on our part : ‘‘ quia nobis dissentiunt, habeant sibi,” 
‘Tet those who differ from us keep their views to themselves,” Bengel. — 
rvebmare éx tiotewc] is not (with Luther) to be considered as one idea (‘‘ Spir- 
itu.qui ex fide est,” ‘‘through the Spirit who is of faith),” since there is no 
contrast with any other spirit, but rather as two points opposed to the év 
vouw in ver. 4: ‘by means of the Spirit, from faith, we expect,” etc. ; so 
that the Holy Spirit is the divine agent, and faith in Christ is the subjective 
source of our expectation.° Wemust not therefore explain rvetuate either as 
the spirit of man simply,® or (comp. on Rom. vill. 4) as the spiritual nature 
of man sanctified by the Holy Spirit ;” but similarly to ver. 16, as the objective 
mvevua dytov, Which is the divine principle of spiritual life in Christians, and 
which they have received é& axoj¢ wiotewc.* And the Holy Spirit is the divine 
mainspring of Christian hope, as being the potential source of all Christian 
dispositions and of Christian life in general, and as the earnest and surety 
of eternal life in particular.® —éArida dixaocivne arexdey. | arexdé yeofa (Rom. 
vili. 19, 23, 25; 1 Cor. i. 7; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Pet. iii. 20) does not indeed 
denote that he who waits ¢s wholly spent in waiting,! but rather" the persist- 
ent awaiting, which does not slacken until the time of realization.’ The 
genitive dixacocbvyc is not appositionis, ‘‘one of apposition,” 1 so that the 
sense would be : ‘‘ the righteousness hoped for by us,” the genitive with éAri¢ 
never being used in this way ; but it is the objective genitive : the hope of 
being justified, namely, in the judgment, where we shall be declared by 
Christ as righteous. At variance with the context, since justification dtse/f 


1 On the figurative éxmimrew, comp. 2 Pet. 
ili. 17; Plut. Gracch. 21: ékmecety kai orep- 
ea0at THs Tpdos TOY Sjpov evvotas, Polyb. xii. 
14.7; Lucian, Cont. 14; Ecclus. xxxi. 4, 

2 Swpedv, Rom. iii. 24. 

3 Rom. iv. 11, 16, xi. 6. 

4 Hofmann. 

5 On mveiuart, comp. Rom. vii. 6, viii. 4, 
15 f., Eph. i. 18 f., ii. 22, e¢ al.; and on éx 
miatews, Comp. ii. 16, iv. 22, Rom. i. 17, iii. 22, 
ix. 30, x. 6, e¢ al. 

© With Grotius, Borger, Fritzsche, and 
others. 


7 Winer, Paulus, Riickert, and others; 
comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hof- 
mann. 

8 iii, 2, 5, iv. 6. 

92 Cor. i. 22, v.5; Eph. i. 14; Rom. viii. 
T1, 23: 

10 Hofmann. 

11 Comp. generally Winer, de verb. compos. 
IV. p. 14. 

12.¢. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. 
p. 156. 

13 Wieseler. 


CHAP V., 6. R20 
is in question (see ver. 4) [See Note LXVIII., p. 243], others understand it 
as the subjective genitive, as that which righteousness has to hope for,’ that is, 
the hoped for reward of righteousness, namely, eternal life.* The fact that the 
dtxacoovvy itself--that is, the righteousness of faith, and not that of a holy 
life,=—is presented as something future, need not in itself surprise us, 
because during the temporal life it exists indeed througk faith, but may 
nevertheless be lost (see vv. 2, 4), and is not yet a definitive possession, which 
it only comes to be at the judgment (Rom. viii. 33 f.). In a corresponding 
way, the viofecia, although it has been already entered upon through faith 
(ili. 26, iv. 5), is also the object of hope (Rom. viii. 23). This at the same 
time explains why Paul here speaks in particular of an éAml¢ dixasocbyye ; he 
thereby indicates the difference between the certainty of salvation in the con- 
sciousness (Rom. viii. 24) of the true Christians, and the confidence, depend- 
ent upon works, felt by the legally righteous, who say: é réum dica- 
obuefa, because in their case the becoming righteous is something in a con- 
tinuous course of growth by means of meritorious obedience to the law. 
Lastly, the expression arexdéyveoVar éAxida is not to be explained by the sup- 
position that Paul, when he wrote éA7ida, had it in his mind to make éyouev 
follow, ‘—an interpretation which is all the more arbitrary, because there is 
no intervening sentence which might divert his thought,—but the hope is 
treated objectively,® so that arexdéyeoda éArida belongs to the category of the 
familiar expressions (jv Biov, miotebew ddEav 3° The 
Catholic doctrine of the gradual inerease of righteousness’ is entirely un- 
Pauline, although favored by Romang, Hengstenberg, and others. Justifi- 
cation does not, like sanctification, develop itself and increase ; but it has, 
as its moral consequence (iv. 6), sanctification through the Spirit which is 
given to him who is justified by faith. Thus Christ is to us dccacocivy te Kai 
dytaouéc, 1 Cor. i. 30. 

Ver. 6. Warrant for the &é« riorewc : for in Christ Jesus, in fellowship with 
Christ (in the relation of the év Xpio76 elvar), neither cireumeision nor uncir- 
eumceision is of any avail ; the fact of a man being or not being circumcised 
is of no influence, but faith, which is operative through love, se. iayier tt. The 
tt ioyvec is to be left in the same general and unlimited form in which it 
stands. Circumcision and uncircumcision are circumstances of no effect or 
avail in Christianity. And yet they were in Galatia the points on which 
the disturbance turned !_ On the faith active in love, which is the effective 
saving element in the state of the Christian, comp. 1 Tim. i. 5; 1 Thess, i. 


éArida. TpoodokacVat. 


1 Hofmann, in fact, arrives at the same re- 
sult, although he rejects the interpretation 
of the genitive as the gen. subjecti; ** To wait 
for the blessing of righteousness already pre- 
pared for him, which constitutes the substance 
of his hope,’—consequently for the arépavos 
of his Sxacocvvyn, 2 Tim. iy. 8 (see Huther in 
loc. ed. 8). 

2So Pelagius, Beza, Piscator, Hunnius, 
Calovius, Bengel, Rambach, Baumgarten, 
Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, Paulus, Win- 
dischmann, Reithmayr, and others; comp. 


also Weiss, bib/. Theol. pp. 333, 341. 

3 Holsten. 

4 Winer, Usteri, Schott. 

5 Comp. on Col. i. 5; Rom. viii. 24; Heb. 
vi. 18. 

8 Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501 ff. Comp. Acts 
XXiv. 15: eAmida ... 
Séxortar, Tit. ii. 13; Job ii. 9; Isa. xxviii. 
10; 2 Mace. vii. 14; Eur. Ale. 130: viv Se tiv’ 
étt Biov é€Amida mpogdéxwpar ; Dem. 1468. 18. 

7 Trident. vi. 10. 24, Dollinger. 


HV Kal avToL ovTOL Tpoc- 


224 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
3; 1 Cor. xiii.; also Jas. ii. 22. By means of this faith man is caw Kriorc, 
vi. 15. Bengel well says: ‘‘Cum jide conjunxit ver. 5, spem, nunc amorem ; 
in his stat totus Christianismus,” ‘‘ with faith, he joined in v. 5 hope, and now 
love ; in these all Christianity, consists.” How very necessary it was for the 
Galatians that prominence should be given to the activity of faith in love, 
may be seen from vv. 15, 20, 26. The passive view of évepyovu., which is 
given by the Fathers and many Catholics, such as Bellarmine, Estius, Reith- 
mayr, in whom the interest of dogmatic controversy against the Protestants 
came toa great extent into play, is erroneous, because évepyeioSa: in the 
N. T. is always middle (vim stam exserere), ‘‘ to exert its force.”* It does 
not mean, ‘‘ having been rendered energetic through love,” ? but working through 
love, expressing thereby its vital power. Moreover, our passage is not at 
variance with justification solely by faith : ‘‘ opera fieri dicit ex fide per car- 
itatem, non justificart hominem per caritatem,” ‘‘ He says that works are 
done from faith by love, not that man is justified by love,” Luther. Comp. 
Calovius : ‘‘ Formatam * etiam fidem apostolus refellit, cum non per carita- 
tem formam suam accipere vel formari, sed per caritatem operosam vel efjica- 
cem esse docet. Caritatem ergo et opera non fidem constituere, sed consequi 
et ex eadem jfluere certum est,” ‘‘The Apostle also refutes jides formata, 
since he teaches that it does not receive its form, neither is it formed by 
love, but that through love it is active or efficacious. It is certain, there- 
fore, that love and works do not constitute faith, but follow it, and flow 
from it.” It must, however, be observed that love (the opposite of all self- 
ishness) must be, from its nature, the continuous moral medium of the oper- 
ation in faith in those who are thereby justified,* 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff.° 

Vv. 7-9. How naturally—and, in conformity with the apostle’s lively 
emotion, asyndetically—the utterance of this axiom of the Christian char- 
acter and life, which the readers had formerly obeyed, is followed by disap- 
proving surprise at the fact that they had not remained faithful to it (ver. 
7), and then by renewed warning against the false teachers, based on the un- 
godly nature (ver. 8) and the destructive influence (ver. 9) of their opera- 
tions !—érpéyere xadoc] that is, your Christian behavior—your Christian 
life and effort—was in course of excellent development. <A figurative mode 
of presenting the activity of spiritual life very frequently used by the apos- 
tle.° — tic ina évéxoe] A question of surprise (comp. ili. 1) : who hindered 
you?™ In Polyb. xxi. 1. 12 it is used with the dative. So also Hippocr. 
pp. 28, 35 ; for it means properly : to make an incision. —rf aandeia pp 
reideoar| from obeying the truth, that is, the true gospel, according to which 
faith alone is that which justifies. 7 is employed, as usual, after verbs of 





1See on 2 Cor. i. 6; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 
vii. 6, II. p. 18. 

2 Reithmayr. 

3 The “ fides formata’’ is also found here 
by Bisping, and especially Reithmayr, fol- 
lowing the Trid. Sess. vi. 7, de justif. See, 
on the other hand, Apol. Conf. Aug p. 81 f. 
[ Book of Concord (Jacobs), p. 102 f.] 

* Comp. also Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. Theol. 


p. 282 ff. 

5 Comp. Lipsius, Rechtfert. p. 192 ; Romang, 
in Stud. u. Krit., 1867, p. 90 ff., who, how- 
ever, concedes too much to the idea of fides 
Sormata. 

®§ Comp. ii. 2; Phil. iii. 11. 

™Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18; Rom. xv. 223 
Perit 


CHAP. V., 7-9. 225 
hindering.! The infinitive with n7 denotes that which, so far as the will of 
the hinderer is concerned, shall not take place. — 7 resouovy «.t.A.] After 
the surprise comes the warning.2 Whether, however, the word is to be un- 
derstood actively, as persuasion, or passively, as compliance, is a point which 
must be decided in the several passages by the context. In this passage it 
is understood as persuasion by Mss. of the Itala (swasio), Vulgate (persuasio), 
Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Zach- 
ariae, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
Matthias, Holsten, and others ; on the other hand, Chrysostom,’ Oecume- 
nius,* Theophylact,® Luther (1519 and 1524 ; but in 1538, and in his transla- 
tion : such persuasion), and others,* explain it as compliance,’ which, how- 
ever, does not fit the word used absolutely. The latter rather yields the 
thought: The persuasion is not of your caller, is not a thing proceeding from 
God (see, on the contrary, 2 Cor. xi. 15). Paul would have this applied to 
the mode of operation of the pseudo-apostles, who worked upon the Gala- 
tians by persuasion (talking over), so that they did not remain obedient to 
the truth, but turned azo rod KaAécavto¢g avtode év yapite Xpiotrod to an érepov 
evayyédov (i. 6). If it were to be taken as compliance, some more precise 
definition must have been appended ;* because compliance is ungodly not 
in itself, but only according to the nature of the demand, the motive, and 
the moral circumstances generally. Some have made it to mean credulitas, 
“credulity,” *® but the sense of the word is thus altered. The talking over, 
however, did not need anything added, since it is of tsel7/, in matters of 
faith at any rate, objectionable ; hence it was very superfluous in Luther, 
Grotius, and many others, to take the article as demonstrative. Moreover, 
the active sense is excellently adapted to the designation of God by 6 xadav 
tuac, inasmuch as the talking over is a mode of operating on men character- 
istically different from the divine calling: the former not befitting the 


1 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 810 f.; Pflugk, 
ad Eur. Hec. 867; Winer, p. 561. 

2% mevomovy Occurs again only in Apoll. 
Synt. p. 195. 10, in Eustath. (ZZ. ¢, p. 6387. 5, a, 
pp. 21, 26, e¢ al.; see Wetstein), and in the 
Fathers (Ignat. ad Rom. 3 interpol.; Just. 
Mart. Ap. I. 53, p. 87 ; Epiph. Hae. xxx. 21; 
Chrysostom, ad 1 Thess. i. 4. 

3 ovK emt TOUTOLS ExadAETEY VILAS O KAAMY, WaTE 
ovTw cadeverOar, ‘‘ He who called you did not 
eall you on these conditions in order that 
you thus waver.” 

470 metcOHvat Tols A€yovoty Uuty TEpLTEemVET- 
dat, “to be persuaded by those bidding you 
be circumcised.” 

570 meiderdar Tots amatao.w, “to obey 
those deceiving.” 

6 Including Morus, Winer, Rickert, Mat- 
thies, Olshausen, Reiche, Hofmann, Reith- 
mayr. 

7™This view serves to explain the omis- 
sion of the ov« in D*, min., Cod. lat. in Jer. 
and Sedul. Clar. Germ. Or. (once), Lucifer. 


15 


Theodoret also appears not to have read it, 
as he gives the explanation: (dcov @eod ro 
kadetv, To 5é mei(derdat ToY axovovTwr, “it is 
the prerogative of God to call ; of the hear- 
ers, to obey.” 

8 At least vu@v, which is actually read by 
Syr. Erp. codd. in Jer. Lucif. Aug. Ambro- 
siast. Sedul. Arm. has airy yap metopovn. 
Vomel and Hofmann seek to remove the in- 
definiteness by reading instead of the ar- 
ticle the relative »: which obedience. But, 
according to this view, 7 mecon. must have 
been correlative to the foregoing wetderdar 
(comp. Wisd. xvi. 2), and this consequently 
must have been defined not negatively, but 
positively, somewhat as if Paul, instead 
of 77H aAnd. wH metdeodar, had written érépw 
evayyedtw reideodar. But having written rt. 
aAnd. wy meidecar, he must, in correlation 
with pi reideoda, have continued relatively 
with 9 a7eiveca. 

§ Estius, Winer, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
others. 


226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


divine dignity like the latter ; the former bound up with human premedi- 
tation, art, and importunity, taking place év rewoi¢ codiag Aéyoue (1 Cor. ii. 
4), counteracting free self-determination, and so forth.’ Bengel, Morus, 
and de Wette understand it as obstinacy (the ‘‘clinging to prejudices,” de 
Wette), making it correspond with the foregoing rH adydeia py reid_eoba. 
So also Ewald, although translating it as self-confidence, and comparing 
ziovvoc. But the passages cited above from Eustathius do not make good 
this signification ; and, in particular, Od. x. p. 785. 22, is quite improperly 
adduced in its favor.? Reiche, preferring the signification compliance, takes 
the sentence as asking indignantly : ‘‘ Annon assensus, obsequium veritati 
praestandum e Deo est, qui vos vocavit ?” ‘‘Is not then assent, obedience to 
the truth to be rendered from God, who has called you ?” But why should 
Paul have expressed this by the singular word re:oyov# not used by him else- 
where, instead of the current and unambiguous ciovi¢ or iraxoy tHe TioTewe ? 
By employing the latter, he would, in fact, have also suited the foregoing 
zeitec da. — The caaov iuac is neither Christ *® nor the apostle,4 but God.* The 
present participle is not to be understood of a continuing call ‘‘ad resipiscen- 
tiam,” ‘* to repentance,” ° a view at variance with the constant use of the abso- 
lute xaAe7v,7 nor does it represent the calling as lasting up to the time of 
their yielding compliance against the truth,* which would be an idea foreign 
to the N. T. ;° but it is to be taken substantivally, your caller, the definition 
of the time nee left out of view.'° God, the caller to everlasting salvation, 
has assigned to every one, by calling him at his conversion," the ‘‘ normam 
totius cursus,” ‘rule of his entire course” (Bengel). — puxpa Coun x.t.A.] The 
meaning of this proverbial warning (see on 1 Cor. v. 6) is : ‘‘ If the false apos- 
tles have, by means of their persuasion, succeeded in making even but a small 
beginning in the work of imparting to you erroneous doctrines or false 
principles, this will develop itself to the corruption of your whole Christian 
faith and life.” So, taking the figure with reference to doctrine, in sub- 
stance also Chrysostom, Theophylact (who, however, explain pxpa Coun too 
specially of circumcision), Luther, Calvin, Cornelius 3 Lapide, and many 
others, including Flatt and Matthies. It is true that the dogma of his op- 
ponents was in itself fundamentally subversive (as Wieseler objects); but 
its influence had not yet so far developed itself, that the Ciuy might not 
have been still designated relatively as wpa. Others interpret it as refer- 
ring to persons : ‘vel pauci homines perperam docentes possunt omnem coe- 
tum corrumpere,” ‘‘even a few men teaching erroneously can corrupt an 
entire body,” Winer ;” but against this it may be urged that the number of 


1 Comp. Soph. Fragm. 744, Dind.: Setvov ro ® Hofmann. 
Tas Ieutots mpoowmov. Aesch. Agam. 385: ° 1.6; Weiss. tbl. Theol. p. 386 f. 
Bratat & & TaAawa Tred. 10 Comp. 1 Thess. v. 24; Winer, p. 331. 
2 See Reiche, p. 79 f. 11 Phil. iii. 14. 
3 Theophylact, Erasmus, Michaelis, and 12 Comp. Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine, 
others. Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Locke, Bengel, 
4 Locke, Paulus. Borger, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, de Wette, 
5 See oni. 6. Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Windisch- 
6 Beza. mann, Reithmayr, and others. 


73. 6, v. 13; Rom. viii. 30, e¢ a. 


CHAPS We, £0: 2270 


the false teachers, as it is in itself a matter of indifference, and does not 
acquire greater significance through their having intruded themselves from 
without, remains also unnoticed throughout the epistle, and the point in 
question was solely the influence of their teaching (comp. reiopnov7), which 
was the leaven threatening to spread destructively.’ 

Ver. 10. After the warning in vv. 8, 9, Paul now assures his readers how 
he cherishes confidence in them, that their sentiments would be in con- 
formity with this warning ; but those who led them astray would meet 
with punishment. — 4,6] with emphasis : J on my part, however much my 
opponents may think that they have won over your judgment to their side. 
Groundlessly and arbitrarily Rickert affirms that what Paul says is not alto- 
gether what he means, namely, ‘‘I indeed have done all that was possible, 
so that I may be allowed to hope,” etc. —eic¢ iuac] towards you.* Usually 
with the dative or éxi. — év xupiw|] In Christ, in whom Paul lives and moves, 
he feels also that his confidence rests and is grounded.* — oidév G70] is re- 
ferred by most expositors, including Luther, Calvin, Winer, Riickert, 
Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, to the 
previous purport of the epistle generally as directed against Judaism. But 
what is there to warrant this vague reference ? The warning which imme- 
diately precedes in vv. 8, 9 (not ver. 7, to which Wieseler, Hofmann, and 
others arbitrarily go back) has the first claim to have oidév a//0 referred to 
it, and is sufficiently important for the reference. The antithesis 6 dé rapac- 
cwv also suits very appropriately the subjects of that warning, 7 zevcuovy and 
Coun, both of which terms characterize the action of the seducers. Usteri 
interprets : that ye will not allow any other than your hitherto subsistisg 
sentiments.” No, a change, that is, a correction of the sentiments pre- 
viously existing, is precisely what Paul hopes for. — @povjcere] ye will have 
no other sentiments (the practical determination of thought). The futre 
(comp. vi. 16) refers to the time when the letter would be received. Hither- 
to, by their submissiveness towards those who were troubling them, they 
seemed to have given themselves up to another mode of thinking, which 
was not the right one.*— 6 dé rapacowv tac] The singular denotes not, as in 
2 Cor. xi. 4, the totwm genus, but, as is more appropriate to the subsequent 
daric av 4, the individual who happened to be the troubler in each actual 
case.° The idea that the apostle refers to the chief person among his op- 
ponents, who was well known to him,*—formerly even guessed at by name, 
and identified with Peter himself (Jerome),—has no warrant in the epistle. 
See, on the contrary, even ver. 12, and compare i. 7, iv. 17. — éorv¢ av 7] is 
to be left entirely general : without distinction of personal position, be he, when 
the case occurs, who he will. The reference to high repute’ would only be 


wGomps 1. °% 10., Lil: 1 5 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 315. 

2 Comp. Wisd. xvi. 324. 6 Erasmus, Luther, Pareus, Estius, Ben- 

3 Comp. Phil. ii. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 4; Rom. gel, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald, and others ; 
xiv. 14. comp. also Usteri. 

4 ado, comp. Lys. in Hratosth. 48 ; érepos is 7 Theodoret, Theophylact, Luther, Estius, 
more frequently thus used, see on Phil. iii. and many others; including Koppe, Flatt, 


ia Rickert, de Wette. 


228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


warranted, if 6 rapdoc. applied definitely to some particular person. —7ré 
kpiwa| the judicial sentence xar’ éZoy7v, that is, the condemnatory sentence of 
the (impending) last judgment.’ Of excommunication® the context con- 
tains nothing.* — Bacrdce:] the judicial sentencc is conceived as something 
heavily laid on,4 which the condemned one carries away as he leaves the 
judgment-seat. The idea of Aau3aver kpiua* is not altogether the same. 
Ver. 11. But I, on my part. The Judaistic teachers, whom the apostle 
thus confronts, had,® as is evident from our passage—with the view of 
weakening the hindrance, which among Pauline churches they could not 
but encounter in the authority of the apostle opposing them—alleged (per- 
haps making use of Timothy’s circumcision, Acts xvi. 3, for this purpose) 
that Paul himself still (in other churches) preached ecirewmeision ; that is, 
that, when Gentiles went over to Christianity, they should allow themselves 
to be circumcised. This calumny’ was sufficiently absurd to admit of his 
dismissing it, as he does here, with all brevity, and with what a striking 
experimental proof! [See Note LXIX., p. 243.] But if I am still preach- 
ing circumeision, wherefore am I still persecuted? For the persecution on the 
part of the Jews was based on the very fact of the atagonism to the law, 
which characterized his preaching of the Crucified One. See the sequel. 
— el repitouyy ete knpioow| Paul mightalso have said, ei w. é. éxfpvocor, 7. é. 
iduwxdunv av, for he means what objectively is not a real matter of fact. But 
he transfers himself directly into the thought of his opponents, and just as 
directly shows its absurdity ; he assumes the reality of what his opponents 
asserted, and then by the apodosis annuls it as preposterous : hence the sense 
cannot be, as it is defined by Holsten, that his persecution on account of no 
longer preaching circumcision had not, possibly, the alleged pretext of 
making the Gentiles complete members of the theocracy, but only the one 
motive of national vanity and selfishness, to annul the offence of the cross.*® 
— The emphasis is laid on repiroufv ; but érz, still,? does not convey the idea 
that Paul, as apostle, had formerly preached circumcision. For although 


1 Comp. Rom. ii. 3, iii. 8; 1 Cor. xi. 29. 

2 Locke, Borger. 

3 Jatho also explains the word as referring 
to this and other ecclesiastical penalties. 
But it was not the manner of the apostle to 
call for the discipline of the church in so in- 
direct and veiled a fashion (comp. 1 Cor. y.). 

49 Kings xviii. 14. 

5Rom. xiii. 2; Jas. iii. 1; Luke xx. 47, 
et al. 

® See Chrysostom. 

7 Comp. also Hilgenfeld in his Zettzschr. 
1860, p. 216 ff. 

5 Holsten has, in a special excursus (2. 
Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 387 ff.), acutely 
explained his interpretation, and endeavor- 
ed to vindicate it. At the close he puts it 
in this shape: ‘“ Paul wishes to denounce 
to the Galatians the secret, unexpressed 
ground of his persecution on the part of his 
opponents: ‘J, dear brethren, am only perse- 


cuted because I no longer preach circumcision ; 
Sor, if T still preach it as the divine will, why 
am 1 still persecuted 2— Thus indeed is the of- 
Sence of the cross annulled!” But still Paul 
must have had some special inducement 
for proposing, inet «.7.A., anotoriously non- 
real case as a logical reality ; and this in- 
ducement could only be found in the cor- 
responding accusation of his opponents. 
Otherwise it would be difficult to see why 
he should not have thrown his language 
into such a form, that the protasis should 
have begun either with «i and the imper. 
fect or with ore (because), and the expression 
of the apodoses should have undergone cor- 
responding modification. According to Hol 
sten’s view, the words have a dialectic enig- 
matical obscurity, which, looking at the sim- 
plicity of the underlying idea, would be 
without motive. 
9 See Schneider, ad Plat. Rep. p. 449 C. 


CHAP avon Le 229 
the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit produced in none of the apostles at once 
and absolutely the laying aside of all religious error previously cherished, 
but led them forward by gradual and individual development into the whole 
truth ;* yet in the case of Paul especially, just because he was converted 
in the midst of his zealotry for the law, the assumption that he had still 
preached the necessity of circumcision for salvation, and had thus done 
direct homage to the fundamental error opposed to the revelation of God in 
him (i. 15), and to His gospel which had been revealed to him (i. 11 f.), 
would be quite wapsychological. And in a historical point of view it would 
be at variance with the decidedly antinomistic character of his whole apos- 
tolic labors as known to us,* as well as with the circumstance that the 
requirement of circumcision in the case of the Gentile Christians, Acts xv., 
came upon the apostolical church as something quite new and unheard of, 
and therefore produced so much excitement, and in fact occasioned the 
apostolic conference. In a purely exegetical point of view, moreover, such 
an assumption is not compatible with ri érv didKoua, because we should 
thereby be led to the inference that, so long as Paul preached circumcision, 
he had not been persecuted ; and yet at the very beginning of his Christian 
labors he was persecuted by the Jews.* Riickert* is of opinion that in 
using ér: they only mean to say that Paul, although he preached Christ, 
required that, notwithstanding this, they should still allow themselves to be 
circumcised. Comp. Olshausen, who refers ér: to the inferiority of the ten- 
dency. But in Olshausen’s view, the reference to an earlier kypitrew repitouhy 
still remains unremoved ; and in that of Riickert, the ér: is unwarrantably 
withdrawn from the apostle and passed over to the side of those to whom he 
preached. Even if (with Hofmann °) we understand the é7 as in contradis- 
tinction to the earlier time, when the preaching of circumcision had been of 
general occurrence and had been in its due place, the reference of this érz is 
transferred to a general practice of the earlier time, although, according to the 
words of the apostle, it clearly and distinctly assumes his own previous 
kipvocew rept. The correct view is the usual one, adopted also by Winer, 
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, that év points back 
to the period before the conversion of the apostle, Certainly the objection is 
made,°® that Paul at that time, as a Jew among Jews, and coming in contact 
with Jewish Christians only, had no occasion at all to preach circumcision. 
But looking at our slight acquaintance with the circumstances of the 
apostle’s pre-Christian life, this conclusion is formed much too rashly. For, 


1 See Liicke’s apt remarks on John ii. 10, ent time.” Thisis also unsuitable, because 


p. 501. 

2 Comp. Acts xxi. 21. 

3 Acts ix. 24 f.; 2 Cor. xi. 32 f. 

4Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius 
Wette. 

5 According to Hofmann, the apostle’s 
meaning is, ‘‘that they would have no 
longer any cause for persecuting him, so 
soon as his preaching of Jesus Christ should 
be that, which it is not—a continuance of 
the preaching of circumcision at the pres- 


and de 


ei would introduce a swmtio ficti, ‘the as- 
sumption of what is false,’ and that indeed 
in the view of Paul himself. Certainly é 
with the present indicative might be so 
put ; but in the apodosis the optative with 
av must have been used, as is the case in 
the passages compared by Hofmann him- 
self (Xen. Anabd. vii. 6. 15, v. 6.12. See also 
Memor. ii. 2. 3; Bornemann, ad Sympos. 4. 
10, 5. 7; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 487). 
® See Reithmayr and Hofmann. 


230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
as CyAwrac for God and the law,' Saul, who was an energetic and * esteemed 
Pharisaic Rabbi, might often have had occasion enough to preach and to 
defend circumcision, partly in the interest of proselytizing, and partly also 
in polemic conflict with Christians in and beyond Judaea, who maintained 
that their faith, and not their circumcision, was the cause of salvation. — 
ri ére dtOxouat ;|] This ére also, which by most® is taken as logical, as in Rom. 
iii. 7, ix. 19, cannot without arbitrary procedure be understood otherwise 
than as temporal: ‘‘Why am I yet always persecuted?” Why have they 
not yet ceased to persecute me ?” They could not but in fact have seen how 
groundless this dice was !— dpa xarypyrytat k.7.2.] apa is, as always, igitur, 
rebus sic se habentibus, ‘‘ therefore, as matters are” (if, namely, I still preach 
circumcision), Paul gives information concerning the foregoing question, — 
how far,namely, there no longer existed any cause, etc. : thus therefore is the 
offence of the cross done away, that is, the occasion for the rejection of the 
gospel, which isafforded by the circumstance that the death of Christ on the 
cross is preached as the only ground of salvation.* If Paul had at the same 
time preached circumcision also as necessary to salvation, then would the Jew 
have seen his law upheld, and the cross would have been inoffensive to him ; 
but when, according to his decisive principle, ii. 21, he preached the death 
of the cross as the end of the law (iii. 18 ; Rom. x. 3, e¢ al.), and rejected 
all legal righteousness—then the Jew took offence at the cross, and rejected 
the faith.° To take it as an interrogation °—with which the accentuation 
might have been dpa (comp. on ii. 17)—appears logically not inappropriate 
after ri ére diOkowa, but yields a less striking continuation of the discourse. 
Ver. 12. The vivid realization of the doings of his opponents, who were 





not ashamed to resort even to such falsehood (ver. 11), now wrings from 
his soul a strong and bitterly sarcastic wish’ of holy indignation : Would 
that they, who set you in commotion, might mutilate themselves ! that they who 
attach so much importance to circumcision, and thercby create commotion 
among you, might not content themselves with being circumcised, but 
might even have themselves emasculated ! On dd¢edov as a particle, see on 
1 Cor. iv. 8. ‘‘Omnino autem observandum est (‘‘It is generally to be ob- 
served that”) SdeAov ® non nisi tum adhiberi, quum quis optat, ut fuerit ali- 
quid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit aut est aut futurum est,” ‘‘is 
employed only when one desires something to have been, or to be in the 
present or future, which has not been, or is not, or will not be,” Her- 
mann, ad Viger. p. 756. It is but very seldom used with the future, as 


1 Acts xxii. 
iii. 5. 

2 Comp. Acts xxii. 4, 5. 

3 Including de Wette and Wieseler. 


3; comp. Gal. i. 14; Phil. being able to appeal to the revealed law, 
would thereby assume a shape in which it 
would cease to be dangerous.”” How arbi- 


trarily the thought is imported! And yet 


41 Cor. i. 23; Phil. iii. 18. 

5 Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. 

6 Syr., Bengel on ver. 12, Usteri, Ewald, 
and others. 

7 According to Hofmann, indeed, it is 
“ quite earnestly meant,’’ and is supposed to 
contain the thought that ‘* their perversity, 
which is now rendered dangerous by their 


the wish, if earnestly meant, would be at all 
events a st/lyone. Fora similar instance of 
a bitterly pointed saying against the Judais- 
tic overvaluing of circumcision, see Phil. 
iii. 2. 

® As to the form odedov, see Interpr. ad 
Moer. p. 285 f. 


CHAP Vis kod 231 
Lucian, Soloec. 1.'— ai] the climactic ‘‘even,” not that of the correspond- 
ing relation of retribution,’ in which sense it would be only superfluous and 
cumbrous. — aroxéyovrac| denotes castration,* either by incision of the vena 
seminalis (Deut. xxiii. 1) or otherwise. Owing to «ai, which, after ver. 11, 
points to something more than the circumcision therein indicated, this in- 
terpretation is the only one suited to the context : it is followed by Chry- 
sostom and his successors, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Cajetanus, Grotius, 
Estius, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, and many others ; also Winer, Riickert, 
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, 
Reithmayr, Holsten ; comp. Ewald, who explains it of a still more com- 
plete mutilation, as does Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others. In 
opposition to the context, others, partly influenced by an incorrect aesthet- 
ical standard,® and sacrificing the middle signification,—which is always 
reflexive in Greek prose writers,° and is also to be maintained throughout in 
the N. T.*— have found in it thesense: ‘‘ exitiwm imprecatur impostoribus,” 
‘‘He imprecates destruction against impostors ;” ® or have explained it of 
the divine extirpation ;° or : ‘‘may they be excommunicated ;1° or : may all 
opportunity of perverting you be taken from them ;”"! or: ‘‘ may they eut 
themselves off from you.” [See Note LXX., p. 244. ] — dvacrazoiv] stronger 
than ;apdcoevy, means here to stir up (against true Christianity), to alarm.™ 
The word, used instead of the classic avacraroy zoisiv, belongs to the later 
Greek. 1 

Ver. 13. ‘‘It is with justice that I speak so indignantly against those 
men ; for ye, who are being worked upon by them to bring you under the 
bondage of the law, have received God’s call to the Messianic kingdom for 
an object entirely different, —in order that ye may be free.” Thus the 
apostle again reminds his readers of the great benefit already indicated in 
ver. 1, but now with the view of inculcating its single necessary moral 
limitation, -— ix’ éAevde_epia] that ye should be free ; éxi used of the ethical aim 
of the xaAciv.’” — uévoy yi x.r.2.| Limiting exhortation. But the verb, which 


1 See Hermann /.c.; Graev. ad Luc. Sol. 
Ii. p. 730. 

2 Wieseler. 

3 Arrian, pict. ii. 20. 19. 

4 See the passages in Wetstein. Comp. am6- 
«otros, castrated, Strabo, xiii. p. 6380; amoxe- 
koupevos, Deut. xxiii. 1. 

5 Comp. Calovius: ‘ 
impure gloss.”’ 

6 Kiihner, II. p. 19. 

T Winer, p. 229. 

6Calvin, acknowledging, however, the 
word as an allusion to circumcision ; Calo- 
vius, and others. 


glossa impura,”’ “an 


® Wieseler. 

19 Hrasmus, Beza, Piscator, Cornelius A 
Lapide, Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae, 
Morus SBaumgarten-Crusius, Windisch- 


mann, and others; Luther, in his trans- 
Jation, rendered it: ¢o be extirpated (thus 


like Calvin); in his Commentary, 1519, he 
does not explain it specially, but speaks 
merely of a curse which is expressed. In 
1524, however, he says characteristically - 
“Si omnino volunt circumcidi, opto, ut et 
abscindantur et sint eunuchi illi amputatis 
testiculis et veretro, i. e., qui docere et 
gignere filios spirituales nequeunt, extra 
ecclesiam ejiciendi.”’ On the other hand, 
in the Commentary of 1538, he says quite 
simply, ‘‘allusit ... ad circumcisionem, 
q. d. cogunt vos cireumcidi, utinam ipsi 
funditus et radicitus excindantur.” 

11 Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten. 

12 Ellicott. 

13 Comp. Acts xvii. 6, xxi. 38. 

14 Sturz, dial. Mac. p. 146. 

16 Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 7; Eph. ii. 10; Soph. 
Oed. C. 1459: raklwgm’ éb’ & Kadets. 


aor THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


is obvious of itself (tpémere, perhaps, or even éyeze), is omitted, the omission 
rendering the address more compact and precise.’ This also corresponds 
(in opposition to Hofmann’s groundless doubt) to the usage of the Greeks 
after the prohibitory ju7j.’— cic adopuiy tH capxi| for an oceasion to the flesh ; do 
not use your liberty so that it may serve as an occasion for the non-spiritual, 
psychico-corporeal part of your nature to assert its desires which are 
contrary to God.* As to cape in the ethical sense, see Rom. iv. 1, vi. 19, 
vii. 14 ; John iii. 6. —adAa dia tHe ayarne dova. adAg2] but let love (through 
which your faith must work, ver. 6) be that by means of which ye stand in 
a relation of mutually rendered service. An ingenious juxtaposition of jfree- 
dom and brotherly serviceableness in that freedom.4 The special contrast, how- 
ever, which is here opposed to the general category of the capé, has its 
ground in the circumstances of the Galatians, and its warrant in what is about 
to be said of love in ver. 14. 

Ver. 14.° Reason assigned for the did ric ayaryc K.7.A. just said : for the 
whole law is fulfilled in one utterance ; that is, compliance with the whole 
Mosaic law has taken place and exists, if one single commandment of it is 
complied with, namely, the commandment, ‘‘ Love thy neighbor as thyself.” 
If, therefore, ye through love serve one another, the whole point in dispute 
is thereby solved ; there can no longer be any discussion whether ye are 
bound to fulfil this or that precept of the law,— ye have fulfilled the whole 
law. ‘‘Theologia brevissima et longissima ; brevissima quod ad verba et 
sententias attinet, sed usu et re ipsa latior, longior, profundior et sublimior 
toto mundo,” ‘‘Theology the briefest and the longest ; the briefest, as to 
words and sentences, but in experience and fact wider, longer, deeper and 
higher than the whole world,” Luther. 6 dae vduoc* places the totality of 
the law in contradistinction to its single utterance. The view of Hofmann, 
that ‘‘it denotes the law collectively as an unity, the fulfilment of which existing 
in the readers they have in the love which they are to show,” falls to the 
ground with the erroneous reading, to which it is with arbitrary artifice 
adapted ; as in particular, 6 ra¢ véz0¢ means not at all the law as unity, but 
the whole law." In point of fact, the phrase does not differ from bAo¢ 6 véuoc, 
Matt. xxii. 40. Without alteration in the sense, the apostle might also 
have written zac yap 6 yéuoc, Which would only have made the emphasis fall 


1Comp. Matt. xxvi. 5; Buttmann, newt. 
Gr. 338. 

2See Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 315 B; 
Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153; Klotz ad 


followed above, A BC & agree. 

6 Comp. 1 Tim. i. 16; Acts xix. 7, xx. 185 
Soph. Zl. 1244; Phil. 13; Thue. ii. 7. 2, vill. 
93.3; Kriiger, § 50. 11. 12. 


Devar. p. 669; Winer, p. 554 f. 

3 Comp. Rom. vii. 8. 

4Comp. Rom. vi. 18, 22; 1 Cor. ix. 19; 
1-Pet.Ai. 16) 2)Pet: i 19. 

5 Hofmann reads the verse : 6 y. mas vou.os 
A form 
of the text so destitute of attestation (Ter- 
tullian alone has in vobis instead of év évi 
Adye), that it is simply equivalent to a (very 
strange) conjecture. Also the omission of ev 
76 is much too feebly attested. In the text, 


év Umty meTANpwrae ayamyncets K.T.A, 


7 [This isan approximate rendering of the 
passage, the meaning of which is not, to me 
at least, very clear. Hofmann seems to 
have been conscious of this want of clear- 
ness, for in his revised edition just issued 
he has considerably altered his mode of ex- 
pression, but still leaves the matter some- 
what obscure.—W. P. D.] Comp. also 2 
Mace. vi. 5; 8 Macc. vi. 2 e¢ al.; Herod. i. 
ible 


CHAP. V., 14. 233 
still more strongly on zac. — rexAgpwra]| As to the reading, see the critical 
notes. The perfect denotes the fulfilment as complete and ready to hand, 
as in Rom. xiii. 8. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Estius, Baumgarten, Semler, Morus, Riickert, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, and others, have correctly explained riypoic- 
Sa of compliance with the law ; for the explanation comprehenditur, ‘‘is 
comprised,” ! that is, avaxedadaovtac (which, however, in Rom. xiii. 9 is dis- 
tinguished from rAgjpovoda.), is at variance with the universal usage of rAnpovv 
tov vouov in the N. T.? The thought is the same as in Rom. xiii. 8, 6 
ayarav tov éEtspov véuov meTAfpwxe, and xXxill. 10, rAApwua vépov 7 
Grotius interprets rAyp. in the same way as in Matt. v. 17: ‘‘sicuti rudi- 
menta implentur per doctrinam perfectiorem, ‘‘ as rudiments are filled out 
by the more perfect doctrine.” This interpretation is incorrect on account 
of rac, and because a commandment of the Mosaic law itself is adduced. — 
év r@| that is, in the saying of the law ; see Winer, p. 103. — aydryoec] 
Ley. xix. 18. Respecting the imperative future, see on Matt. i. 21; and. 
as to éavrév used of the second person, see on Rom. xiii. 9.2 On the idea of 
the dc éavr., see on Matt. xxii. 39.4. The neighbor is, for the Christian who 
justly (Matt. v. 17) applies to himself this Mosaic commandment, his fellow- 
Christian,® just as for the Jew it is his fellow-Jew. But how little this is to 
be taken as excluding any other at all, is shown not only by distinct intima- 
tions, such as vi. 10, 1 Thess. iii. 12, 2 Pet. i. 7, but also by the whole 
spirit of Christianity, which, as to this point, finds its most beautiful ex- 
pression in the example of the Samaritan (Luke x.) ; and Paul himself was 
a Samaritan of this kind towards Jews and Gentiles. — The question, how 
Paul could with justice say of the whole law that it was fulfilled by love 
toward one’s neighbor, is not to be answered, either by making véuoc signify 
the Christian law,* or by understanding it only of the moral law," or of the 
second table of the Decalogue,* or of every divinely revealed luw in general ;° 
for, according to the connection of the whole epistle, 6 rac vduoc cannot 
mean anything else than the whole Mosaic law. But it is to be answered by 
placing ourselves at the lofty spiritual standpoint of the apostle, from which 
he regarded all other commandments of the law as so thoroughly subordi- 
nate to the commandment of love, that whosoever has fulfilled this com- 
mandment stands in the moral scale and the moral estimation just as if he 
had fulfilled the whole law. From this lofty and bold standpoint every- 
thing, which was not connected with the commandment of love (Rom. xiii. 
8-10) fell so completely into the background,” that it was no longer con- 


ayarn. 


1 Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, Calvin, Ram- 
bach, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Rosen- 
miler, Winer, Usteri, Olshausen, Reiche, 
and others. 

2 Comp. éxmuumAdvar 7. vouov, Herod. i.. 
199; so also Philo, de Abrah. I. p. 36. See vi. 
2; Matt. iii. 15; Rom. viii. 4, xiii. 8; Col. 
iv. 17. 

3 Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 447. 

4 Comp. Cie de Legg. i. 12: ‘‘ Nihilo sese 
plus quam alterum homo diligat,” ‘Let a 


man love himself no more than he does 
another.”’ 

5 Comp. ver. 13, aAAnAots, and see ver. 14. 

® Koppe. 

7 Estius and many others. 

8 Beza and others; also Wieseler ; comp. 
Ewald. 

® Schott. 

10 Especially the precepts as to cadtus, in 
the apostle’s view, were included among 
the orotxeia Tod Koopoy, iv. 3. 


234 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


sidered as aught to be separately and independently fulfilled ; on the 
contrary, the whole law appeared already accomplished in love, that is, in the 
state of feeling and action produced by the Spirit of God (ver. 22 f.; Rom. 
xv. 30), in which is contained the culminating point, goal, and consumma- 
tion of all parts of the law.’ The idea thus amounts to an impletio totius 
legis dilectione formata, ‘‘ fulfilment of the whole law, energized by love,” 
by which the claim of the law is satisfied (ver. 23). The view of Hofmann, 
that here the law comes into consideration only so far as it is not already 
Fulfilled in faith ; that for the believer its requirement consists in the com- 
mandment of love, and even the realization of this is already existing in him, 
so that he has only to show the love wrought in him by God—simply 
emanates from the erroneous form of the text and the wrong interpretation 
of ver. 14 adopted by him. That the apostle, moreover, while adducing 
only the commandment of love toward one’s neighbor, does not exclude the 
commandment of love towards God,? was obvious of itself to the Christian 
consciousness from the necessary connection between the love of God and 
the love of our neighbor.* Paul was induced by the scope of the context to 
bring forward the latter only (vv. 18, 15). 

Ver. 15. Adkvere xai xatecbiere] A climactic figurative designation of the 
hateful working of party enmity, in which they endeavored mutually to 
hurt and destroy one another. Figurative expressions of this nature, de- 
rived from ravenous wild beasts, are elsewhere in use.* xareo@ierv is not, 
however, to be understood ° as to gnaw, but must retain the meaning which 
it always has, to eat up, to devour.’ Observe the climax of the three verbs, 
to which the passive turn of the final result to be dreaded also contributes ; 
Hi] O70 AAAHAwY avarwbhyte| lest ye be consumed one of another—consumamini ; 
that is (for Paul keeps by his figure), lest through these mutual party hos- 
tilities your life of Christian fellowship be utterly ruined and destroyed. 
What is meant is not the ceasing of their status as Christians,’ in other 
words, their apostasy ; but, by means of such hostile behavior in the very 
bosom of the churches, there is at length an utter end to what constitutes 
the Christian community, the organic life of which is mutually destroyed by 
its own members. 

Ver. 16. With the words ‘‘ But I mean” (iii. 17, iv. 1) the apostle intro- 
duces, not something new, but a deeper and more comprehensive exhibition 
and discussion of that which, in vv. 13-15, he had brought home to his 
readers by way of admonition and of warning—down to ver. 26. Hofmann 
is wrong in restricting the illustration merely to what follows after 4224, 
—a view which is in itself arbitrary, and is opposed to the manifest corre- 


1 Therein lies the essence of the so-called 3 Comp. 1 John iv. 20; 1 Cor. Vili. 1,3.. \ 
tertius usus, ‘‘ third use,”’ of the law, the fur- 4See Maji Obss. Il. p. 86; Jacobs, ad 
ther development of which is given in the Anthol. VIII. p. 230; Wetstein, iv doc. 
Epistle to the Romans. Comp. Sieffert, in 5 With Schott. 
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. p. 211 f. [See Chap- 6 See on 2 Cor. xi. 20; Hom. JU. ii. 814, xxi. 


ter on ‘‘ The Third Use.” Formula of Con- 24, Od. i. 8, et al.; LXX. Gen. xl. 17; Isa. i. 
cord, chap. vi., Philadelphia edition, Book "> Add. ad Hsth. 1. 11, 
of Concord, 1. 508 sqq., 595 sqq.] 7 Hofmann. 

2 Comp. Matt. xxii. 37 f. 


CHAP: Va, U2 200 


lation existing between the contrast of flesh and spirit and the adgopuy, 
which the free Christian is not to afford to the flesh (ver. 13). — rvetpuari 
mepimateite| dative of the norma.! The subsequent rvetuati dyeoHe in ver. 18 
is more favorable to this view than to that of Fritzsche,? who makes it the 
dative commodi (spiritui divino vitam consecrare, ‘‘ to consecrate the life to the 
Divine Spirit,” or to that of Wieseler, who makes it instrumental, so that 
the Spirit is conceived as path (the idea is different in the case of dvd in 
2 Cor. v. 7), or of Hofmann, who renders : ‘‘ by virtue of the Spirit.” Ca- 
lovius well remarks : ‘“‘juata instinctum et impulsum,” ‘according to the 
suggestion and impulse of the Spirit.” The spzrit is not, however, the 
moral nature of man (that is, 6 iow dvOpwroc, 6 voic, Rom. vil. 22, 28), which 
is sanctified by the Divine Spirit,’ in behalf of which appeal is erroneously 
(see also Rom. viii. 9) made to the contrast of caps, since the divine rveipa 
is in fact the power which overcomes the odpé ;+ but it is the Holy Spirit. 
This Spirit is given to believers as the divine principle of the Christian life 
(iii. 2, 5, iv. 6), and they are to obey it, and not the ungodly desires of 
their céps.° The absence of the article is not ° at variance with this view, 
but it is not to be explained in a qualitative sense,’ any more than in the 
case of Bedc, xipioc, and the like ; on the contrary, rvevua has the nature of 
a proper noun, and, even when dwelling and ruling in the human spirit, 
remains always objective, as the Divine Spirit, specifically different from the 
human (Rom. viii. 16).* —xai éxiBupiav capkid¢ ob uy TeAéonre| is taken as con- 
sequence by the Vulgate, Jerome, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Gro- 
tius, Estius, Bengel, and most expositors, including Winer, Paulus, Riickert, 
Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr ; 
but by others, as Castalio, Beza, Koppe, Usteri, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Ewald, in the sense of the imperative. Either view is well adapted to the 
context, since afterwards, for the illustration of ‘what is said in ver. 16, the 
relation between capf and rveiua is set forth. But the view which takes it 
as consequence is the only one which corresponds with the usage in other 
passages of the N.T., in which od uf with the aorist subjunctive is always 
used in the sense of confident assurance, and not imperatively, like ov with 
the future, although in classical authors oi uj is so employed. ‘‘ Ye will 
certainly not fulfil the lust of the flesh,—this is the moral blessed consequence, 
which is promised to them, if they walk according to the Spirit.”° [See 
Note LXXI., p. 244.] 

Ver. 17. ‘H yap caps ériOuyei cata Tov rvetpatoc, TO O& TvEdpma KaTa T. CdpKoc] 
The foregoing exhortation, with its promise, is elucidated by the remark 


2 


1 kata rvevwa, Rom. viii. 4. Comp. vi. 16; 5 Comp. Neander, and Miiller, v. d. Stinde, 
Phil. iii. 16; Rom. iv. 12; Hom. Jl. xv. 194: I. p. 458, ed. 5. 
ovte Avos Béowar peau, ‘‘ Nor do I order my § In opposition to Harless on Eph. p. 268. 
life according to the will of Zeus.” 7 Hofmann. 

2 Ad Rom. I. p. 225. ® Comp. on vv. 3,5, and on Rom. viii. 4 ; 
. 3 Beza, Gomarus, Riickert, de Wette, and also Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 78. 
others; comp. Michaelis, Morus, Flatt, * On rtedecv, used of the actual carrying 
Schott, Olshausen, Windischmann, De- out of a desire, passion, or the like, comp. 
litzsch, Psychol. p. 389. Soph. O. #. 13830, #7. 769 ; Hesiod, Scut. 36. 


4 Rom. vii. 23 ff., Rom. viii. 1 ff. 


236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

that the flesh and the Spirit are contrary to one another in their desires, so that 
the two cannot together influence the conduct. — As here also 76 rvedua is 
not the moral nature of man (see on ver. 16), but the Holy Spirit,’ a com- 
parison has to some extent incorrectly been made with the variance between 
the vove and the cdpé (Rom. vii. 18 ff.) in the still unregenerate man, in 
whom the moral will is subject to the flesh, along with its parallels in Greek 
and Roman authors.? Here the subject spoken of is the conflict between 
the fleshly and the divine principle in the regenerate. The relation is there- 
fore different, although the conflict in itself has some similarity. Bengel in 
the comparison cautiously adds, ‘‘ guodammodo,” ‘‘in a measure.” —ravra 
yap adrproi avtixecrac] As to the reading ydp, see the critical notes. It in- 
troduces a pertinent further illustration of what has just been said. In order 
to obviate an alleged tautology, Riickert and Schott have placed ratra y. 
add. avtix. in a parenthesis (see also Grotius), and taken it in the sense : 
“‘for they are in their nature opposed to one another.” A gratuitous inser- 
tion ; in that case Paul must have written : gicee yap tatta aad. avtix., for 
the bare avrixectac after what precedes can only be understood as referring 
to the actually existing conflict. — iva py x.7.2.] is not* to be joined to the 
first half of the verse,—a connection which is forbidden by the right view of 
the raita yap add. avtix. as not parenthetical—but to the latter. iva ex- 
presses the purpose, and that not the purpose of God in the conflict men- 
tioned— which, when the will is directed towards that which is good, would 
amount to an ungodly (immoral) purpose—but the purpose of those powers 
contending with one another in this conflict, in their mutual relation to the 
moral attitude of man’s will, which even in the regenerate may receive a 
twofold determination.4 In this conflict both have the purpose that the 
man should not do that very thing (ravta with emphasis) which in the re- 
spective cases (av) he would. If he would do what is good, the flesh, striving 
against the Spirit, is opposed to this; if he would do what is evil, the Spirit, 
striving against the flesh, is opposed to that. All the one-sided explanations 
of d Gv OéAnre, Whether the words be referred to the moral will which is 
hindered by the flesh,*® or to the sensual will, which is hindered by the 





1 De Wette wrongly makes the objection, 
that in the state of the regenerate this re- 
lation of conflict does not find a place, see- 
ing that the Spirit has the preponderance 
(vv. 18, 24). Certainly so, if the regenera- 
tion were complete, and not such as it was 
in the case of the Galatians (iv. 19), and if 
the concupiscentia carnis, *‘ lust of the flesh,’’ 
did not remain at allin the regenerate. 
That tvevua here denotes the Holy Spirit, is 
confirmed by ver. 22. The difference of the 
conflict in the unconverted and in the re- 
generate consists in this,—that in the case 
of the former the ocapé strives with the 
better moral will (vods), and the capé is vic- 
torious (Rom. vii. 7 ff.); but in the case of 
the regenerate, the oapé strives with the 
Holy Spirit, and man may obey the latter 
(ver. 18). In the former case, the creature- 


ly power of the cap& is in conflict with the 
likewise creaturely vovs, but in the latter 
with the divine uncreated mvredpa. De 
Wette was erroneously of opinion that here 
Paul says briefly and indistinctly what in 
Rom. vii. 15 ff. he sets forth clearly; the view 
of Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 389, is similar. 

2 Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 21; Arrian. Hpict. ii. 26; 
Porphyr. de abst.i. 56; Cie. Tuse. ii. 21, e¢ 
al., and Rabbins (see Schoettgen, Hor. 
p. 1178 ff). 

8 With Grotius, Semler, Moldenhauer, 
Riickert, and Schott. 

4 Comp. Weiss. bibl. Theol. p. 361 f. 

® Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Morus, 
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Usteri, Riickert, Schott, 
de Wette ; also Baumgarten-Crusius, Hol- 
sten, and others. 


CHAPS V.1,/ 118. 237 


Spirit,' are sct aside by the fact that iva yf «.7.2. is connected with the pre- 
ceding raita yap GAA. avtix., and this comprehends the mutual conflict of 
two powers.” Winer has what is, on the whole, the correct interpretation : 
“<8 xvevua impedit vos (rather impedire vos cupit), quo minus perficiatis ra 
Tie capkoc (Ca, quae 7 cap perficere cupit), contra 7 cdpf adversatur vobis, 
ubi ta Tov rvebiuatoc peragere studetis,” ‘‘ The Spirit hinders (rather desires 
to hinder) you from accomplishing the things of the flesh (i.e., those which the 
Jlesh desires to accomplish) ; on the other hand, the flesh antagonizes you when 
you are eager to do the things of the Spirit.” * 
of the conflict (ratira . tavta Tote) Might indeed in itself be dispensed 
with, since it was in substance already contained in the first half of the 
verse ; but it bears the stamp of an emphatic and indeed solemn exposition, 
that it might be more carefully considered and laid to heart. In Hof- 
mann’s view, iva yu) «.t.4. is intended to express, as the aim of the conflict, 
that the action of the Christian is not to be self-willed (‘‘springing from 
himself in virtue of his own self-determination’’) ; and this, because he can- 
not attain to rest otherwise than by allowing his conduct to be determined 
by the Spirit. But setting aside the fact that the latter idea is not to be 
found in the text, the conception of, and emphasis upon, the se/f-willed, 
which with the whole stress laid on the being se/f-determined would form 
the point of the thought, are arbitrarily introduced, just as if Paul had 
written : iva py) & Gv ato (or avtoi ipeic, Rom. vii. 25, 
abroyvauovec, wTdévouot, avtéBovdo, or the like). 

Ver. 18. If, however, of these two conflicting powers, the Spirit is that 
which rules you, in what blessed freedom ye are then! *— rvebware dyeobe| 
See on Rom. viii. 14.°—ov« éoré bd véuov|] namely, because then the law can 
have no power over you ; through the ruling power of the Spirit ye find your- 
selves in such a condition of moral life (in such a xavvérng SaAc, Rom. vi. 4, 
and rvetpyaroc, vii. 6), that the law has no power to censure, to condemn, or 
to punish anything in you.® In accordance with ver. 23, this explanation 
is the only correct one ; and this freedom is the true moral freedom from 
the law, to which the apostle here, in accordance with ver. 13, attaches 
importance.” There is less accuracy in the usual interpretation: *° ye no 
longer need the law ; as Chrysostom : ri¢ ypeia véuov; 7H yap olkofev Katop- 


This more precise statement 


or avdaipetor, Or 


Govvre Ta pelo Tov ypeia radaywyov ; or : you are free from the outward con- 
straint of the law;° comp. also Hofmann, who, in connection with his mis- 
taken interpretation of ver. 14, understands a subjection to the law as a 
requirement coming from without, which does not exist in the case of the 


1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, 
Neander. Comp. also Ewald, “ in order that 
ye, according to the divine will expressed 
on the point, may not do that which ye possi- 
bly might wish, but that of which ye may 
know that God desires and approves it.” 

2 Comp. Ernesti Urspr. der Stinde, I. p. 89. 

3 So in substance Ambrose, Oecumenius, 
Bengel, Zachariae, Koppe, Matthies, Reith- 
mayr, and others; Wieseler most accu- 


rately. 

4 Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 2 ff. 

§ Comp. also 2 Tim. iii. 6. 

6 Comp. on Rom. viii. 4. 

7 Comp. 1 Tim. i. 9. 

8 Adopted by Winer, Riickert, Matthies, 
Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius; comp. de 
Wette. 

9 Usteri, Ewald. 


238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Christian, because in him the law collectively as an unity is fulfilled. [See 
Note LXXII., p. 244 seq. ] 

Vv. 19-23. The assertion just made by Paul, that the readers as led by 
the Spirit would not be under the law, he now illustrates more particularly 
(dé), by setting forth the entirely opposite moral states, which are produced 
by the flesh and by the Spirit respectively (vv. 22 f.) : the former exclude 
from the Messiah’s kingdom (are therefore abandoned to the curse of the 
lew), while against the latter there is no law. 

Ver. 19. davepa dé x.7.4.] Manifest, however (now to explain myself more 
precisely as to this oi« éoré ‘7d réuov), open to the eyes of all, evidently 
recognizable as such by every one, are the works of the flesh, that is, those 
concrete actual phenomena which are produced when the flesh, the sinful 
nature of man (and not the Holy Spirit), is the active principle. The dé (in 
opposition to Hofmann’s objection) is the dé erplicatioum, frequently used 
by Greek authors and in the N.T.? That one who is led by the Spirit will 
abstain from the zpya which follow, is obvious of itself ; but Paul does not 
state this, and therefore does not by dé make the transition to it, as Hof- 
mann thinks, who gratuitously defines the sense of gavepa as : ‘‘ well known 
to the Christian without law.” ? The list which follows of the épya tie capKéc 
contains four approximate divisions : (1) lust: ropveia, axabapc., acédry. 3; (2) 


idolatry : cidwaoratp., gapunak.; (3) enmity: éxOpar.. . ddvoe ; (4) imtemper- 
ance: péfat, Kouor. — axabapoia] lustful impurity (lewdness) generally, after 
the special topveia. Comp. Rom. i. 24; 2 Cor. xii. 21. — aoéAyeca] lustful 


immodesty and wantonness. See on Rom, xiii. 138. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 21 ; 
Eph. iv. 19 ; 1 Pet. iv. 3; 2 Pet. 1. 7. [See Note LX XIE, j)pa2aan} 

Ver. 20. EidwioAarpeia| is not to be considered as a species of the sins of 
lust ;* a view against which may be urged the literal sense of the word, and 
also the circumstance that unchastity was only practised in the case of 
some of the heathen rites. It is to be taken in its proper sense as idolatry. 
Living among Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not unfrequently seduced 
to idolatry, to which the sacrificial feasts readily gave occasion.* — gapyakeia| 
may here mean either poison-mingling,® or sorcery.° The latter interpretation 
is to be preferred,’ partly on account of the combination with eidwAo2arpeia,* 
partly because ¢é6voc occurs subsequently. Sorcery was very prevalent, 
especially in Asia (Acts xix. 19). To understand it, with Olshausen, 
specially of love-incantations, is arbitrary and groundless, since the series of 
sins of lust is closed with daoé2yera. —The particulars which follow as far as 
gdvor stand related as special manifestations to the more general éy#pa. On 
the plural, comp. Herod. vii. 145 ; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 10. — tyAoc, Rom, xiii. 
13 ; jealousy, 1 Cor. iii. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 20, Jas. iii, 16.— The distinction 


1 Winer, p. 421; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. ¢ Ex. vii. 11, 22, viii. 3; Isa. xlvilt 9) 12); 
Dell Rev. ix. 21, xviii. 23, xxi. 8; Wisd. xii. 4, 

2 On davepss, lying open to cognition, mani: xviii. 13; comp. ¢apuaxa, Herod. iii. 85; 
Jestus, see van Hengel, ad Rom. I. p. 111. hapnaxeverv, Herod. vil. 114. 

3 Olshausen. 7 With Luther, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, 

4 Comp. on 1 Cor. y. 11. Winer, Usteri, Schott, de Wette, Ewald, 


5 Plat. Legg. viii. p. 845 E; Polyb. vi. 13. Wieseler, Hofmann, and others. 
4, xl. 3.7; comp. dapuaxds, Dem. 794. 4. ® Comp. Deut. xviii. 10 ff.; Ex. xxii. 18. 


CHAP. V., 21, 22. 239 
between @vudc and dpyf is, that opy7 denotes the wrath in itself, and Aude 
the effervescence of it, exasperation. Hence in Rev. xvi. 19, xix. 15, we have 
Avuoc tic opyic.1— épieiac] self-seeking party-cabals.? — diyooracia, aipécerc | 
divisions, fuctions.? Observe how Paul, having the circumstances of the 
Galatians in view, has multiplied especially the designations of dispeace.* 
According to 1 Cor. iii. 3 also, these phenomena are works of the jlesh. 

Ver. 21. Adv01, 66vor] paronomasia, as in Rom. i. 29 ; Eur. Troad. 736. 
—kopo.| revellings, comissationes, especially at night.°— kai ra bpuova toirore | 
and the things which are similar to these (the whole matters mentioned in vv. 
20, 21). ‘*Addit et zis similia, quia quis omnem lernam carnalis vitae 
recenseat ?” ‘‘ He adds ‘such-like ;’ for who can recount the entire marsh of 
this carnal life.” Luther, 1519. — The rpo in rpoAéyw and rpoeizor is the be- 
forehand in reference to the future realization ° at the rapovoia ; and the past 
mpoeirov reminds the readers of the instructions and warnings orally given 
to them, the tenor of which justifies us in thinking that he is referring to 
the first and second sojourn in Galatia. — rpdcoovrec| those who practise such 
things ; but in ver. 17 rouwre : ye do.” — Baoiaciav Oeov ov KAnpovon.|° Sins of 
this kind, therefore, exclude the Christian from the kingdom of the Messiah, 
and cause him to incur condemnation, unless by werévora he again enters 
into the life of faith, and so by renewed faith appropriates forgiveness.’ 
For the having been reconciled by faith is the preliminary condition of the 
new, holy life,*? and therefore does not cancel responsibility in the 
judgment.” 

Ver. 22. 6 dé xaproc¢ Tov tvehuaToc] essentially the same idea, as would be 
expressed by ra dé épya Tov rvehwatoc—the moral result which the Holy Spirit 
brings about as its fruit.” But Paul is fond of variety of expression.’ A special 
intention + in the choice cannot be made good, since both épya and xaproc 


1 See on Rom. ii. 8. 

2 See on Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 20. j 

3 Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 18 f. On atpeocs in this 
signification, which occurs only in later 
writers (1 Cor. xi. 19; Acts xxiv. 5, 14), see 
Wetstein, II. p. 147 f. Comp. aiperoris, 
partisan, Polyb. i. 79. 9, ii. 38. 7. 

4 Comp. Soph. @. C. 1234 f. 

5 Herm. Privatalterth. § 17. 29. Comp. 


% 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10; Rom. viii. 34; 1 John ii. 
1f.; observe the present participle. 

10 Rom. vi. 

11 2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10. 

12 Comp. Pind. OQ/. vii. 8: Kkapmos dpevos, 
Nem. x. 12, Pyth. ii. 74; Wisd. iii. 13, 15. 

13 Comp. Eph. ii. 9, 11. 

14 Chrysostom thought that Paul had used 
kapros, because good works were not, like 


Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Plat. Theaet. 
p. 173 D: éetrva cai ody avAnrpior K@mor, * ban- 
quets and revellings with flute-girls.”” Symp. 
p. 212 C; Isaeus, p. 39. 21 : k®por kai ageAyera, 
“revellings and licentiousness.”’ Herod. i. 
21: mivew k. KHWUw xypeeTtat Es aGAAHAOUs, ‘tO 
drink and indulge in revelling with one an- 
other.” Jacobs, Del. epigr. iv. 43: xkwpmov x. 
macys Kolpave mavvuxidos, ‘lead the revel 
and the entire night festival.” 

6 Herod. i. 53, vii. 116; Lucian. Jov. Tragq. 
30; Polyb. vi. 3. 2. 

7 See on Rom. i. 32; John iii. 20. 

8 Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9f , xv. 505 Eph. v. 5; 
das. ii. 5; and generally, Rom. vi. 8 ff. 


evil works, brought about by ourselves 
alone, but also by the divine ¢Aavipwma. 
Comp. also Holsten, who, however, makes 
the distinction sharper. Luther and many 
others. including Winer, Usteri, Schott: 
because it is beneficent and praiseworthy 
works which are spoken of. Matthies: be- 
cause that whereby the Spirit proves His 
presence, is, in and by itself, directly fruit 
and enjoyment. Reithmayr mixes up vari- 
ous reasons, including the very groundless 
suggestion that in xapmds there is implied 
the acknowledgment of man’s joint part in 
the production. 

15 Comp. the clear passage in the LXX. 


240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


are in themselves voces mediae, ‘‘colorless terms,” and according to the 
context, nothing at all hinged on the indication of organic development,’— 
a meaning which, moreover, would have been conveyed even by épya, and 
without a figure,—or of the proceeding from an inner impulse.* The 
collective* singular xapréc has sprung, as in Eph. v. 9, from the idea of inter- 
nal unity and moral homogeneity ; for which, however, the singular ipyov 
(see on vi. 4) would also have been suitable (in opposition to the view of 
Wieseler).—That gac and zvedua are not to be considered as identical on ac- 
count of Eph. v. 9, see on Eph. J.c. — ayaz7] as the main element,® and at 
the same time the practical principle of the rest, is placed at the head, cor- 
responding to the contrast in ver. 18. The selection of these virtues, and 
the order in which they are placed, are such as necessarily to unfold and to 
present to the readers the specific character of the /ife of Christian fellowship 
(which had been so sadly disturbed among the Galatians, ver. 15). Love 
itself, because it is a fruit of the Spirit, is called in Rom. xv. 30, ayary tod 
xvehuatoc. — yapa] is the holy joy of the soul, which is produced by the 
Spirit, through whom we carry in our hearts the consciousness of the divine 
love,’ and thereby the certainty of blessedness, the triumph over all suffer- 
ings, etc. The interpretations : participation in the joy of others,* and a 
cheerful nature towards others,’ introduce ideas which are not in the text.’ 
— elpiyn| Peace with others. Rom. xiv. 17; Eph.iv. 3. The word has 
been understood to mean also peace with God," and peace with oneself ; ? but 
against this interpretation it may be urged, that this peace (the peace 
of reconciliation) is antecedent to the further fruits of the Spirit, and that 
elphun k.T.2. is evidently correlative with éy6pa x.r.A. in ver. 20, so that the 
elpfvy Ocov (see on Phil. iv. 7) does not belong to this connection, — 
paxpoOvuia| long-suffering, by which, withholding the assertion of our own 
rights, we are patient under injuries,!* in order to bring him who injures us 
to reflection and amendment.'* The opposite : o&v#uuia, Eur. Andr. 728. — 
xpnorérnc| Benignity. 2 Cor. vi. 6 ; Col. iii. 12.%—dyafwotry| goodness, pro- 
bity of disposition and of action. It thus admirably suits the xior¢ which 
follows. Usually interpreted :'° kindness ; but see on Rom. xv. 14. — rioric] 
Jidelity."" Matt. xxiii. 23 ; Rom. iii. 8 ; and see on Philem. 5.— pair : 
meekness.8 The opposite : aypidryc, Plat. Conv. p. 197 D, in Greek authors 


Proy. x. 16, where épya and xaproi alternate ® Calvin, Michaelis. 
exactly in the opposite sense: épya dtxatwy 10 Rom. xii. 15. 
Cwiv move, Kaptrot be ageBwv apaptias, 11 Rom. v. 1. 
1 See on caprés especially, Rom. vi. 21 f.; 12 de Wette and others. 
Matt vii. 20; Plat. Hp. 7, p. 336 B. 13 Boadvs eis opyyv, Jas. i. 19. 
2 To which Olshausen refers xapros. 14 Comp. Rom. ii. 4; 2 Cor. vi. 6. 
3 de Wette. 15 See Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff. 
4 Hom. Od. i. 156, and frequently. 16 Also by Ewald and Wieseler. 
51 Cor. xiii.; Rom. xii. 9. 17 de Wette, Wieseler, Reithmayr, take it 
6 See on Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Thess. i. 6 ; comp. as confidence, the opposite to distrust, 1 Cor. 
also 2 Cor. vi. 10. xiii. 7. But the substantive does not occur 
7 Rom. vy. 5. in this general sense in any other passage 


® Grotius, Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, of the N. T. 
Winer, Usteri. 18 See on 1 Cor. iv. 21. 


CHAPIIV., Lon on R41 





often combined with ¢v2avOpwria. — éyxparera] self-control, that is, here conti- 
nence, aS opposed to sins of lust and intemperance,! 

Ver. 23. Just as ra rovavra in ver. 21,* rév towtTrwy in this passage is also 
neuter, applying to the virtues previously mentioned among the fruits of the 
Spirit,* and not masculine, as it is understood by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, Bengel, and many of 
the older expositors ; also by Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Hofmann.* It 
is, moreover, quite unsuitable to assume (with Beza, Estius, Rosenmiiller, 
Flatt, and others) a peiwore ;° for Paul wishes only to illustrate the oi« eivar 
id vduov, Which he has said in ver, 18 respecting those who are led by the 
Spirit. This he does by first exhibiting, for the sake of the contrast, the 
works of the flesh, and expressing a judgment upon the doers of them ; and 
then by exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, and saying : ‘‘ against virtues and 
states of this kind there is no law.” Saying this, however, is by no means 
‘‘more than superfluous” (Hofmann), but is intended to make evident how it 
is that, by virtue of this their moral frame, those who are led by the Spirit 
are not subject to the Mosaic law.* For whosoever is so constituted that 
a law is not against him, over such a one the law has no power. Comp. 
tein. 1. 9 f. 

Ver. 24. After Paul has in ver. 17 explained his exhortation given in ver. 
16, and recommended compliance with it on account of its blessed results 
(vv. 18-23), he now shows (continuing his discourse by the transitional dé) 
how this compliance—the walking in the Spirit—has its ground and motive 
in the specific nature of the Christian ; if the Christian has crucified his flesh, 
and consequently lives through the Spirit, his walk also must follow the 
Spirit. — rv capa éctatpwcar| not : they crucify their flesh ;7 but : they have 
erucified it, namely, when they became believers and received baptism, 
whereby they entered into moral fellowship with the death of Jesus * by 
becoming vexpol 7 auapria.* The symbolical idea: ‘‘to have crucified the 
Jlesh,” expresses, therefore, the having renounced all fellowship of life with 
sin, the seat of which is the flesh (caps) ; so that, just as Christ has been ob- 
jectively crucified, by means of entering into the fellowship of this death on 
the cross the Christian has swbjectively—in the moral consciousness of faith 
—crucified the capé, that is, has rendered it entirely void of life and efficacy, 
by means of faith as the new element of life to which he has been trans- 
ferred. To the Christians ideally viewed, as here, this ethical crucifixion of 


1 Keclus. xviii. 830; Acts xxiv. 25; 2 Pet. i. 
6; Xen. Mem.i. 2. 1: appodiciwy x. yaortpos 
eykpatéatatos. 

2 Haec talia: see Engelhardt, ad Plat. 
Lach. p. 14; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 2. 

8 Trenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, 
Calvin, Beza, yet doubtfully, Castalio, Cor- 
nelius & Lapide, and most expositors. 

4So also Baéumlein, in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1862, p. 551f. The objection that the singu- 
lar 0 kapros in ver. 22 forbids the neuter in- 
terpretation (Hofmann), is quite groundless 
both in itself and because xapmos is collec- 


16 


tive. 

5 Non adversatur, sed commendat, ‘‘ He 
does not oppose, but commends,” and the 
like ; so also de Wette. 

6 The fundamental idea of the whole epis- 
tle—the freedom of the Christian from the 
Mosaic law—is thus fully displayed in its 
moral nature and truth. Comp. Sieffert, in 
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1869, p. 264. 

7 Luther and others ; also Matthies. 

§ See on ii. 19, vi. 14; Rom. yi. 3, vii. 4. 

® Rom, vi. 11. 


242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


the flesh is something which has taken place,’ but in reality it is also some- 
thing now taking place and continuous.” The latter circumstance, however, 
in this passage, where Paul looks upon the matter as completed at conver- 
sion and the life thenceforth led as (jv rvetpare,*® is not to be conceived * as 
standing alongside of that ideal relation,—an interpretation which the his- 
torical aorist unconditionally forbids. — civ roi¢ maby. x. Taig éribuu| together 
with the affections® and lusts, which, brought about by the power of sin in- 
stigated by the prohibitions of the law,* have their seat in and take their 
rise from the caps, the corporeo-psychical nature of man, which is antago- 
nistic to God ; hence they must, if the capé is crucified through fellowship 
with the death of the Lord, be necessarily crucified with it, and could not 
cemain alive.” The ém@vuia are the more special sinful lusts and desires, in 
which the radjuara display their activity and take their definite shapes.* 
The affections excite the feelings, and hence arise éxSvuia, in which their 
definite expressions manifest themselves. 

Ver. 25. If the Christian has crucified his flesh, it is no longer the ruling 
power of his life, which, on the contrary, proceeds now from the Holy Spirit, 
the power opposed to the flesh ; and the obligation thence arising is, that 
the conduct also of the Christian should correspond to this principle of life 
(for otherwise what a self-contradiction would he exhibit !) — ei Céuev rveb- 
art] introduced asyndetically (without ody), so as to be more vivid. The © 
emphasis is on rvetpat, as the contrast to the cdpé : If after the crucifying 
of the flesh we owe our life to the Holy Spirit, by which is meant the life 
which begins with conversion, through the radryyeveoia (Tit. iii. 5)—the life 
of the new creature, vi. 15."°—The jirst rvetpyarz is ablative: the second, em- 
phatically placed at the commencement of the apodosis, is the expression of 
the norma (ver. 16).!! crosyeiv (comp. also Acts xxi. 24) is distinguished 
from sepirareiv in ver. 16 only as to the figure ; the latter is ambulare, the 
former is ordine procedere (to march). But both represent the same idea, 
the moral conduct of life, the firm regulation of which is symbolized in 
oToLyelv. 

Ver. 26. Special exhortations now begin, flowing from the general obliga- 
tion mentioned above (vy. 16, 25) ; first negative (ver. 26), and then positive 
(vi. 1 ff). Hence ver. 26 ought to begin a new chapter. The address, 
adeAdoi (vi. 1), and the transition to the second person, which Rickert, 
Schott, Wieseler, make use of to defend the division of the chapters, and 
the consideration added by de Wette, that the vices mentioned in ver. 26 
belong to the works of the flesh in ver. 20, and to the dissension in ver. 15 
(this would also admit of application to vi. 1 ff.), cannot outweigh the con- 
nection which hinds the special exhortations together. — xevédéFor.] vanam 


1 Comp. Rom. vi. 2 ff. 977 yap émt Tov Supoy lovay Suvdper dhAov 
2 Rom. vili. 13; Col. iii. 5. OTL TovTO ekA7y TO dvowa, ‘it is manifest 
3 Ver. 25; comp. ii. 20. that this term was applied to the force 
4 With Bengel and Schott. coming upon the Spirit (emt tov Supor),” 
5 See on Rom. vii. 5. . Plat. Crat. p. 419 D. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5. 

6 Rom. vii. &. 10 Comp. Rom. vi. 4 ff., vii. 5 f., vill. 95 
7 Comp. on ver. 17; Rom. vii. 14 ff. 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; Gal. ii. 20. 


8 Rom. vii. 5,8. 1 Comp. vi. 16; Phil. iii. 16; Rom. iv. 12. 


NOTES. 243 
gloriam captantes.! 
who had remained faithful to him,’ nor merely to those of Judaistic senti- 
ments,* for these partial references are not grounded on the context ; but to 
the circumstances of the Galatians generally at that time, when boasting 
and strife (comp. ver. 15) were practised on both sides. —Both the ywoyueda in 
itself,‘ and the use of the first person, imply a forbearing mildness of ex- 
pression. — dAAqdove tpoKaa., arAHaAowe PYovovvrec] contains the modus of the 
challenging one another (to the conflict, in order to triumph over 
the challenged), envying one another (namely, those superior, with whom 
they do not venture to stand a contest).° — @Jovety governs only the dative 
‘of the person,° or the accusative with the infinitive,” not the mere accusative ;° 
hence the reading adopted by Lachmann, a/27/0v¢ ¢dov.,° must be considered 
as an error of transcription, caused by the mechanical repetition of the 
foregoing aAAjdovc. — The fact that 4227/2. in both cases precedes the verb, 
makes the contrariety to fellowship:more apparent, ver, 13. 


In these warnings, Paul refers neither merely to those 


Kevodosia : 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


LXVIII. Ver..5. éArida dixaoovvne. 


The restriction of the argument by Meyer to justification seems too narrow. 
The subject at this particular place is rather, as Sieffert remarks : What is the 
goa] towards which the true Christian advances from the time of the reception 
of grace? In opposition to the painful and fruitless endeavor to fulfil the law, 
this is, according to ver. 5, the joyful hope founded upon faith and grace. 
Weiss’ paraphrase is: ‘‘We expect the salvation which we have to hope for 
in consequence of the righteousness which has been presented us & miotewc”’ 
(Eng. Trans. I, 451), 


LXIX. Ver. 11. é repitomny K.7.A. 


This interpretation, to which Sieffert objects, on the ground that while con- 
sistent with the line of argument, it nevertheless is incomprehensible how such 


1 Phil. ii. 3; Polyb. xxvii. 6. 12, xxxix. 
1. Comp. xevodofetv, 4 Macc. y. 9, and xevo- 
Sofia, Lucian V. 77. 4, M.D. 8. See Servius, 
ad Virg. Aen. xi. 854. 

2 Olshausen. 

3 Theophylact and mary others. 

4 Fiamus, ‘“‘let us become.”” The matter 
is conceived as already in course of taking 
place ; hence the present, and not the aorist, 
asisreadin G*, min., yevoueda. The Vul- 
gateand Erasmus also correctly render it 
eficiamur. On the other hand, Castalio, 
Beza, Calvin, and most expositors, incor- 
rectly give simus, “let us be.’? Against 
eficiamur Beza brings forward the irrele- 
vant dogmatic objection: “ atqui natura 
ipsa tales nos genuit,” ‘* But our very nature 
has begotten us as such,” which does not 
hold good, because Christians are 7egener- 


ate (ver. 24). Hofmann dogmatically affirms 
that forbearing mildness is out of the ques- 
tion.. It is, in fact, implied in the very ex- 
pression. Comp. Rom. xii. 16; 2 Cor. Vi. 
14; Eph. v.17. And passages such as iv. 12 
are in no way opposed to this view, for they 
are without negation ; comp. Eph. v. 1, Phil. 
Till %. 

5 On mpoxadrciodat, to provoke, see Hom. J/. 
iii. 482, vii. 50. 218. 285; Od. viii. 142; Polyb. 
i. 46. 11 ; Bast. ep. crit. p. 56, and the passages 
in Wetstein. 

6 Kihner, II. p. 247. 

7 Hom. Qd. i. 346, xviii. 16, xi. 381; Herod. 
viii. 109. 

8 Not even in Soph. 0. #. 310. 

® Following B G*, and several min., 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, ms., Oecumenius. 


244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


slander could have originated, has been well put by Lightfoot : ‘* At this point 
the malicious charge of his enemies rises up before the apostle : ‘Why, you do 
the same thing yourself ; you caused Timothy to be circumcised.’ To this he 
replies: ‘What, do J, who have incurred the deadly hatred of the Judaizers, 
who am exposed to continual persecution from them, do J preach cireumci- 
sion?” For other circumstances than the circumcision of Timothy, whence 
this charge might have originated, see Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of N. T., Eng. Tr., I, 
486. 
LXX. Ver. 12. amoxdwovrat. 


‘««The common interpretation of the Fathers, confirmed by the use of the 
language in the LXX., is not to be rejected only because it is displeasing to the 
delicacy of modern times” (Jowett). The American section of the Revision 
committee, following the French rendering of Deut. xxiii. 1, reeommends the 
euphemism, ‘‘ Go beyond circumsion” as the preferable mode of expressing this 
idea of the verb in a version for general circulation. Both Lightfoot and Eadie 
emphasize the fact that such mutilation was a part of the rites of the worship 
of Cybele, and as such the allusion would have been at once understood. The 
idea conveyed is that circumcision, when no longer fulfilling its original design 
as an ordinance adumbrative of Christ and His blessings, has no more validity 
than such degrading prescriptions of the heathen, and that the sole difference 
is in degree, but notin kind. The application of this principle here is in the 
vein of intense irony. The explanation of Sanday is certainly remarkable, that 
while the interpretation here maintained is the true one, Paul is writing 
under the strain of passion, and in his anger uses an expression that indicates 
‘*one of very few flaws in a truly noble and generous character.” 


LXXI. Ver. 16. exfnyiav capkoc. 


«¢The Pauline conception of cdpé, even where not used in ethical relations, is 
not contrary to its original anthropological signification, according to which it 
is the human body (not indeed with respect to the form, which is designated by 
cana, but) with respect to its contents, and therefore especially with respect to 
its material substance, as well as according to its powers ; and, therefore, in 
its inner combination with the lower human soul-life, which Paul ordinarily 
understands by the term 1vy7, as contradistinguished from the higher spiritual 
life of man allied to God, the voic. This sensuo-psychical side of man’s na- 
ture is clearly also ocap& here, where mvevwa and capg appear as two different 
principles working upon the human will from the higher human spiritual life, 
as also in Rom. vii., where odpé and wéAy are antithetical to voic. Butin this and 
other passages where odp£ maintains an ethical relation, it especially signifies 
the sensuo-psychical side of man’s nature, so far as it is brought by the human 
will which was originally in harmony with God into antagonism with God and 
all that is godly, and thus, by the egoistic alienation of that will from God, 
constituted a dominant life-principle, active through the first sin of Adam in 
the entire human race, and continually perpetuated through transmission” 
(Sieffert). 

LXXITI. Ver. 18. ovx éoré b76 voor. 


While Sieffert’s interpretation, as opposed to Meyer, that the Mosaic law is 
here referred to, cannot be substantiated, yet it is better, not merely with 
Usteri and Ewald, but with a large number of exegetes (Hofmann, Lightfoot, 


NOTES. 245 


Eadie, among the more recent) and dogmaticians, to regard the not being under 
the law as freedom from the constraint and coercion of the law. So far as 
man is led by the Spirit of God, the law is written on his heart. No longer an 
external matter, it becomes a second nature, a life-force, whereby the duties 
prescribed by God are rendered with joy, instead of reluctance. Thus Weiss 
(Bibl. Theol. of N. T., I. 483, Eng. Trans.) : ‘‘ Those who are led by the Spirit 
are, viz., no longer under the law (Gal. v. 18) ; for what the law with its require- 
ment strove after, and yet could not reach (Rom. viii. 3), that the Spirit really 
attains to, inasmuch as at His instigation the requirement of the law is fulfilled 
in them who walk according to the Spirit. The power of the Spirit, which is 
operative in man, has taken the place of the law, which is outwardly fixed in the 
letter.” Quenstedt (iv. 11): ‘* Not to be under the law signifies to be freed from 
the curse and constraint of the law, because the regenerate are led by the Spirit, 
are delighted in the law according to the inner man, and spontaneously do the 
things which are of the law.” Cf. Formula of Concord (598 : 16): ‘As long as 
man is not regenerate and conducts himself according to the law, and does the 
works of the law because they are thus commanded, from fear of punishment or 
desire for reward, he is still under the law, and his works are properly called 
by St. Paul works of the Jaw, for they are extorted by the law, as those of slaves” 


(Phil. edition). Compare Westminster Confession, xix. 7. 


LXXIII. Ver. 19. épya tij¢ capxéc. 


«The flesh is spoken of in the entire short paragraph in its lusting and 
warrings, in contrast with the Spirit in its wrestlings and leadings. Those who 
are guided by the Spirit are not as such under the law ; but the flesh is under 
law, under its sentence and dominion: manifest are its works, and the law 
cannot but condemn them as fpya, works done by the evil and unrenewed na- 
ture. It is needless to press a contrast in ¢avepd with the fruit of the Spirit, as 
being more hidden, and needing to be educed and specified. The works of 
the flesh are notorious and notoriously of a corrupt origin’ (Eadie). 


246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


CHAPTER Vi- 


Ver. 2. dvardAnpdoare] [Elz., Tisch, 1859, following 8 A CD, ete.] Lachm. 
and Schott [Tisch. 1872], read avarAnpacere, following B F G, 33, 35, and several 
vss. and Fathers. Looking at this amount of attestation, to which the vss. give 
special weight (including Pesch., Vulg. It.), and considering that the impera- 
tive might readily have been occasioned by the preceding imperatives, the 
aorist form being involuntarily suggested by the similar future form, the future 
is to be preferred.—Ver. 10. épyatwuefa] A B L, min., Goth. Oec. read épya- 
Couea. Approved by Winer, but too feebly attested, especially as hardly any 
version is in favor of it. A mere error in transcribing, after the preceding 
indicatives §epicouev and éyouev, Looking at the frequent confusion of wand o, 
we must also regard as a copyist’s error the reading in ver. 12 of d:wxovras, 
adopted by Tisch., and attested by A C, etc., instead of déxwvra: (B D, ete.). — 
Ver. 12. uw] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive testimony, to be 
placed after Xpuorov. — Ver. 13. repitexvouevor] B L, many min., also vss. and 
Latin Fathers, read mepitetunuévor.1 Recommended by Griesb., adopted by 
Lachm. and Scholz, and approved by Rinck and Reiche. And justly ; the pre- 
terite is absolutely necessary, as the Judaistic teachers are meant. The present 
has crept in as a mere mechanical error of the transcribers, who had just pre- 
viously written mepitéuvecbar, and perhaps also recollected v. 3. — Ver. 14. 7@ 
before xéoum is omitted by Lachm. [and Tisch. 1872.] on weighty evidence ; 
but it might be readily suppressed, owing to the preceding syllable yo, espe- 
cially as the article might be dispensed with, and kdcouo¢ just before was anar- 
throus.—Ver, 15. ev ydp Xpioré "Inoov oie] B, 17, Arm. Aeth. Goth. Chrys. Georg. 
Syncell. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast., have merely oire yap (Syr. Sahid., od ydp). 
Approved by Mill, Seml., Griesb., Rinck, Reiche ; adopted by Bengel, Schott, 
Tisch. Justly ; the Recepta is manifestly an amplifying gloss, derived from v. 
6,— éoriv] Elz. and Matth. read icyier, against decisive evidence. Derived 
from v. 6. — Ver. 16. ororyijoovow] [Tisch. 1872], following 8, B C** K L P, 
Vulg. Chrys. Cyr. Theodoret, Dam. But, A C* DE FG, 4, 71, Syr. utr. Sahid. 
It. Cyr. Victorin. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast., read ctotyovow. Approved by Griesb., 
placed in the margin by Lachm., adopted by Tisch. [1859]. But the present 
suggested itself most readily to the unskilled transcribers, and what ground 
could these have had for the alteration in the future ?— Ver. 17. xvpiov is 
omitted before “Ijcov in A B C*, 8, 17, 109, Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. ms. Petr. 
Alex. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A frequent addi- 
tion, in this case specially derived from ver. 18 ; hence several witnesses add 
nav. 

ConTENTS.—Continuation of the special admonitions begun in v. 26 (vv. 
1-5) ; then an exhortation to Christian morality in general, with allusion to 


1 Jn favor of this may probably be reck- mepiteuynuéevor, Which betray through the 
oned also F with wepitepvypor, and G with wrongly written » perfect forms. 


CHA Pravalu,l. 247 
its future recompense (vv. 6-10). A concluding summary, in the apostle’s 
own handwriting, of the chief polemical points of the epistle (vv. 11-16) ; 
after which Paul deprecates renewed annoyance, and adds the benediction 
(vive, 18). 

Ver. 1. Loving (ddeAgoi) exhortation to a course of conduct opposed to 
Kevodotia. —iav Kai mpoAndy x.t.2.| Correctly rendered in substance by the 
Vulgate : ‘‘etsi praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto.” The mean- 
ing is: ‘if even any one ' shall have been overtaken by any fault,—so, namely, 
that the sin has reached him more rapidly than he could flee from it (1 Cor. 
vi. 18, x. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22). So Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and most expositors, including Riickert and 
de Wette ; and in substance also Wieseler, who, however, explains pod. 
figuratively of a snare, in which (év) one is unexpectedly (po) caught.” 
There is, however, no intimation of this figure in the context (kataprifete) 5 
and to explain év the quite common instrumental use amply suffices, accord- 
ing to which the expression is not different from the mere dative. Ina 
mild and trustful tone Paul conceives the sin, which might occur among 
his Galatians, oniy as ‘‘ peccatum praecipitantiae,” ‘a sin of precipitancy ;” 
for this is, at any rate, intimated by zpoayod7. On rporauBaveww, to overtake, 
comp. Xen. Cyn. 5, 19; 7, 7; Theophr. #. pl. vil. 1. 3; Polyb. xxxi. 23. 
8 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 75 ; Strabo, xvi. p. 1120. Im édy kai the emphasis is 
laid on «i (if even, if nevertheless).? Others * have explained rpoAngdy as 
deprehensus fucrit, is seized ; but against this view it may be urged that, as 
the word cannot be used as merely equivalent to the simple verb, or to 
“KaTaAnodh,? or éykataAngdn,® no reference for the zpo can be got from the 


context.’ Even in Wisd. xvii. 17, zpoAygdeic means overtaken, surprised by 
destruction. And the xai does not require that interpretation, because, 


while it might belong to rpoAyodH,* so as to mean also actually caught,° or, 
by way of climax, even caught, it does not necessarily belong to it. — ipeic 
oi mvevuatixoi} Paul thus puts it to the consciousness of every reader to 
regard himse/f as included or not: ye, the spritual, that is, who are led by 
The opposite : puyexoi, capxexoi (1 Cor. 11.13 f., 11. 1). In 
the case of duvatoi, Rom. xv. 1, the circumstances presupposed and the con- 


the xvevua aycov. 


trast are of a different character. 


1 avdpwros, as in ver. 7, and 1 Cor. xi. 28, 
iv. 1, e¢ al. 

2Comp. Goth. ‘‘ gafahdiddu,” 
caught. 

3 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519; Baeuml. 
Partik. p. 151. 

4 Grotius, Winer, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, 
Ewald, Hofmann. 

§ John viii. 4. 

6 Aeschin. Cles. p. 62. 17. 

7 Grotius strangely interprets: ‘‘ depre- 
hensus antequam haec epistola ad vos veniat,” 
“caught before this epistle come to you.” 
Winer introduces more than the text war- 
rants: ‘“‘etiamsi quis antlea deprehensus fu- 
erit in peccato, eum tamen (ilerwin peccantem) 


that is, 


Those very mvevuatixoi might readily be 


corrigite,” ‘“‘even though one have been 
previously caught in sin, nevertheless cor- 
rect him (again sinning).’? Paul must have 
expressed this by ¢av kat madw Andy. 
Olshausen affirms that by zpo the AauBaveora 
is indicated as taking place before the cara- 
prugev. But this relation of time was so 
obvious of itself, that it would have been 
strange thus to express it. Hofmann inter- 
prets not more aptly: ‘‘eve he repents of the 
sin; as if this idea could. only be thus 
mentally supplied! Luther appropriately 
remarks, ‘if a man skould somehow be 
overtaken by a fault.” 

§ Klotz, p. 521; Kiihner, § 824, note 1. 

® Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 17. 


248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

guilty of an unbrotherly exaltation and severity, if they did not sufficiently 
attend to and obey the leading of the Spirit towards meekness. — xarapri- 
Sere] bring him right, into the proper, normal condition ; dsopSoire, Chrysos- 
tom.' A jigurative reference to the setting of dislocated limbs? is not sug- 
gested by the context. — év rvetpati tpadrytoc| through the Spirit of meekness, 
that is, through the rvevya aywov producing meekness. For rveiwa should 
be understood, not with Luther, Calvin, and many others, of the human 
spirit (1 Pet. iii. 4), of the tendency of feeling or tone of mind,* but of the 
Holy Spirit, as is required by the very correlation with rvevuarixoi.4 But 
among the manifold xaprog tov rvetparocg (V. 22), tpabryto¢ brings promi- 
nently forward the very quality which was to be applied in the xarapriCecv. 
In that view it is the ‘* character palmarius hominis spiritualis,” ‘‘ the pre- 
eminent characteristic of the spiritual man,” Bengel. — oxorév ceavrov x.t.A.] 
looking (taking heed) to thyself lest, etc.° There is here a transition to the 
singular, giving a more individual character to the address ; just as we fre- 
quently find in classical authors that after the plural of ‘the verb, the singular 
of the participle makes the transition from the aggregate to the individual. ® 
Erasmus aptly remarks that the singular is ‘‘magis idoneus ad compel- 
landam uniuscujusque conscientiam,” ‘better adapted for addressing the 
individual conscience.” There is therefore the less ground for considering 
these words as an apostolical marginal note (Laurent). — uz kai od rerp.| lest 
thou also (like that fallen one) become tempted, enticed to sin,—wherein the 
apostle has in view the danger of the enticement being successful.’ Lach- 
mann places a full stop after tpaityroc, and connects cxomév . . . recpaodig 
with the words which follow ; a course by which the construction gains 
nothing, and the connection actually suffers, for the reference of xa) cd to 
Tov rovovrov is far more natural and conformable to the sense than the refer- 
ence tO aAAjiov. 

Ver. 2. a4A42wv| emphatically prefixed (comp. v. 26), opposed to the hab- 
it of selfishness : ‘‘ mutually one of the other bear ye the burdens.” 7a apy, 
however, figuratively denotes the moral faults (comp. ver. 5) pressing on 
men with the sense’of guilt, not everything that is oppressive and burden- 
some generally, whether in the domain of mind or of body,*—a view which, 
The 
mutual bearing of moral burdens is the mutual, loving participation im 
another’s feeling of guilt, a weeping with those that weep in a moral point of 
view, by means of which moral sympathy the pressure of the feeling of guilt 
is reciprocally lightened.’ As to this fellowship in suffering, comp. the ex- 


according to the context, is much too vague and general (vv. 1, 3, 5). 


1 Comp. on 1 Cor. i. 10. Hofmann. 


2 Beza, Hammond, Bengel, and others. 

3 Riickert, de Wette, Wieseler, and others. 

4 See on 1 Cor. iv. 21. 

5 Comp. Soph. Phil. 506. In Plat. Theaet, 
p. 160 E, Luke xi. 35, it is differently used. 
Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 209. 

6 See Bernhardy, p. 421 ; Lobeck, ad Soph. 
Aj. 191. 

7 Comp. 1 Cor, vii. 5. 


8 Matthies, Windischmann, Wieseler, 


® Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Cramer’s 
Cat. (and in Fritzsche, p. 129), well remarks 
that the bearing of one another’s burdens 
takes place, éray dia mapatvéecews Kal XpyoTo- 
TYTOS Emtkoudigys avT@ THy WuxHV, VTS THS 
TOU GpmapTHmatos cuvetdyoews Pe- 
Bapynuévnv, ‘whenever by advice and 
kindness you relieve his spirit, weighed 
down by the consciousness of sin.” 


CHAP YI., 3: 249 


ample of the apostle himself, 2 Cor. xi. 29. It is usually taken merely to 
mean, Have patience with one anothers faults ; * along with which several, such 
as Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Winer, quite improperly (in opposition to diAgrov, 
according to which the burdened ones are the very persons affected by sin) 
look upon apy as applying to faults by which a person becomes burden- 
some to others. But the command, thus understood, would not even come 
up to what was required in ver. 1, and would not seem important and high 
enough to enable it to be justly said : kat obtw¢ avarAnpacete Tov vouov T. Xp. 
—and in this way (if ye do this) ye will entirely fulfil the law of Christ, the 
law which Christ has given, that is, the sum of all that He desires and has 
commanded by His word and Spirit, and which is, in fact, comprehended 
in the love*® which leads us to serve one another. What Paul here requires 
is conceived by him as the culminating point of such a service. He speaks 
of the véuoc of Christ in relation to the Mosaic law,* which had in the case 
of the Galatians—and how much to the detriment of the sympathy of love— 
attained an estimation which, on the part of Christians, was not at all 
due to it ; they desired to be id véuov, and thereby lost the évvoyov Xpiarow 
elva.* A reference at the same time to the example of Christ, who through 
love gave Himself up to death® (as contended for by Oecumenius and 
Usteri), is gratuitously introduced into the idea of véuoc. The compound 
avarAnp is, as already pointed out by Chrysostom (who, however, wrongly 
explains it of acommon fulfilment jointly and severally), not equivalent to the 
simple verb,® but more forcible : to jill up, to make entirely full (the law 
looked upon as a measure which, by compliance, is made full ; comp. v. 
14), so that nothing more is wanting.” The thought therefore is, that with- 
out this moral bearing of one another’s burdens, the fulfilment of the law of 
Christ is not complete ; through that bearing is introduced what otherwise 
would be wanting in the avarAjpwore of this law. And how true this is ! 
Such self-denial and self-devotion to the brethren in the ethical sphere ren- 
ders, in fact, the very measure of love full,® so far as it-may be filled up at 
all.° 

Ver. 3. Argumentum e contrario for the preceding kai oitwe avarAnp. T. v. T 
Xp.; in so far as the fulfilment to be given in such measure to this law is 
impossible to moral conceit.—VFor if any one thinks himself to be something, 
imagines himself possessed of peculiar moral worth, so that he conceives 
himself exalted above such a mutual bearing of burdens, while he is nothing, 
although he is in reality of no moral importance, he is, so far from fulfilling 
the law of Christ, involved in self-deception. — On eivai t1, and the opposite 
pndéev eivat, nullius momenti esse, ‘*to be of no account,” ?° comp. ii. 6, and see 


1 Rom. xv. 1. as to which you are deficient.”’ 1 Thess. ii. 

ve ddit: 16; Matt. xiii. 14. See Tittmann, Synon. 

3 Comp. v. 14. p. 228 f. ; Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. com- 

2ACor, 1x. 21. Ossi Nel. usu. Wl. pe ld t. 

5 Rom. xv. 3; Eph. v. 2. 81 Cor. xiii. 4 ff. 

§ Rickert, Schott, and many others. 9 Rom. xiii. 8. 

7Comp. Dem. 1466. 20: ay ay éxAetmyTe 10 Comp. Arrian. Hpict. ii. 24: doxav peév te 
VILELS, OVX EVPHTETE TOUS avaTAnpwoorTas, ‘you eivat, ay & ovdeis, “to be of no account.” 


will not find such as will fill up those things 


200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
on Acts v. 86 ; 2 Cor. xii. 11 ; Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 148. As to pf with 
the participle, see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 801. If pydév dv be attached to 
the apodosis,' the effect is only to weaken the judgment which is expressed 
in it, because it would contain the fundamental statement (since he is nothing) 
in which the éevr. @pevar. is already obviously involved, and consequently, 
as the first portion of the affirmation in the apodosis, would anticipate the 
latter portion of it and take away its energetic emphasis. This is not the 
case, if the ‘‘ being nothing” belongs to the antithetical delineation of con- 
ceited pretension in the protasis, where it is appropriate for the completeness 
of the case supposed. Moreover, dv oy is really applicable in the case of 
every one, Luke xvii. 10 ; Rom. iii. 23 ; 1 Cor. iv. 7, et al. — dpevarara] de- 
notes deception in the judgment, here in the moral judgment ; the word is 
not preserved in any other Greek author.? 

Ver. 4. But men ought to aet in a way entirely different from what is in- 
dicated by this doxei eivai tx. ‘‘ His own work let every man prove, and 
then,” etc. —The emphasis lies on 76 épyov (which is collective, and denotes the 
totality of the actions, as in Rom. ii. 7, 15; 1 Pet. i. 17; Rev. xxii. 12), 
opposing the objective works to the subjective conceit. — dokipatétw] not : pro- 
batum reddat,* ‘‘render approved,” a meaning which it never has (comp. on 
1 Cor. xi. 28), but : let him try, investigate of what nature it is. — cai rére] 
and then, when he shall have done this (1 Cor. iv. 5), not : when he shall 
have found himself approved.* — ei¢ éavrov pwdvov 70 Kabynua é&e1, K.7.A.] does 
not mean, he will keep his glorying for himself,’ that is, abstinebit a gloriando, 
‘he will abstain from glorying;” ° for although éyecv may, from the context, 
obtain the sense of keeping back,” it is in this very passage restricted by xa? 
ovk ei¢ Tov érepov to its simple meaning, to have ; and xaiyyua is not equivalent 
to Kabyyow, but must retain its proper signification, materies gloriandi, 
‘“subject for glorying.” ® 
of Winer : ‘‘non tantas in se ipso reperiet laudes, quibus apud alios quoque 
glorietur,” ‘‘In himself he will not find such praise, of which to boast also 
before others ;” of Usteri : ‘‘then will he have to glory towards himself 
alone, and not towards others,’—a delicate way of turning the thought : 
“‘then he will discover in himself faults and weaknesses sufficient to make him 
think of himself modestly ;’ and of Wieseler, ‘‘he will be silent toward 
others as to his xaiyyua.”” But in accordance with the context, after the re- 
quirement of self-examination, the most natural sense for cic (on account of 
the antithesis, ei¢ éavrdv —eic tov étepov) is: in respect to, as regards ; more- 
over, in the above-named interpretations, neither the singular nor the article 
in rov étepov obtains its due weight. The sentence must be explained : then 
will he have cause to glory merely as regards himself, and not as regards the 
other ; that is, then will he have cause to boast merely in respect of good of 


Nearest to the view of Koppe in seise come those 


1 Michaelis, Baumgarten, Morus, Jatho, 
Hofmann. 

2 But comp. dpevaratys, Tit. i. 10; Ignat. 
Trail. interpol. 6; Etym. M. 811. 3. 

3 Reza, Piscator, Rambach, 
Michaelis, Riickert, Matthies. 


Semler, 


4 Erasmus, Estius, Borger, and others. 

5 Comp. Hilgenfeld. 

6 Koppe. 

7™Hom. J. y. 271, xxiv. 115; Eur. Cyci. 
270. 


8 Rom. iy. 2; 1 Cor. y. 6, and always. 


CHAPS) Vi; 3 251 
his own, which he may possibly find on this self-examination, and not in 
reference to the other, with whom otherwise he would advantageously com- 
pare himself. Castalio aptly remarks : ‘‘ probitas in re non in collatione,” 
“‘worth isin the thing, not in the comparison,” and Grotius: ‘‘ gaude- 
bit recto sui examine, non deteriorum comparatione,” ‘‘ He will rejoice by a 
just examination of self, not by comparison with the worse”—as, for 
instance, was done by the Pharisee, who compared himself with robbers, 
adulterers, etc., instead of simply trying his own action, and not boasting 
as he looked to others, whom he brought into comparison.’ «kaiyyya with the 
article denotes, not absolute glory,” which no one has (Rom. iii. 23), but the 
relevant cause for the xavyacda: which he finds in himself, so far as he does 
so, on that trial of his own work. It is therefore the xaiyjua, supposed or 
conceived by Paul, as the result of the examination in the several. cases.* 
This relative character of the idea removes the seeming inconsistency with 
vv. 3 and 5,* and excludes all untrue and impious boasting ; but the taking 
Kavynua éxyew ironically,’ or as mimesis,® is forbidden even by kai oi« ei¢ tov 
érepov. Hofmann interprets, although similarly in the main, yet without 
irony, and with a more exact unfolding of the purport : ‘‘ while otherwise he 
found that he might glory as he contrasted his own person with others, he will 
now in respect to the good which he finds in himself, seeing that he also discovers 
certain things in himself which are not good, have cause to glory only towards 
himself—himself, namely, who has done the good, as against himself who has 
done what is not good.” But in this interpretation the ideas, which are to 
form the key to the meaning, are gratuitously imported ; a paraphrase so 
subtle, and yet so clumsy, especially of the words eic¢ éavrév uovov, could not 
be expected to occur to the reader. More simply, but introducing a differ- 
ent kind of extraneous matter, de Wette interprets : ‘‘and then he will for 
himself alone (to his own joy) have the glory (if he has any such thing, which 
is evidently called in question) not for others (in order thereby to provoke 
and challenge them).” But how arbitrary it is to assign to eic two refer- 
ences so entirely different, and with regard to xatyyua to foist in the idea : 
‘if he has aught such”! A most excellent example of the ci¢ éavtov pdvoy rd 
Kabynua Every is afforded by Paul himself, 2 Cor. x. 12.7 

Ver. 5. Reason assigned, not for the summons to such a self-examination, 
but for the negative result of it, that no one will have to glory eic tov érepov : 
Sor every one will have to bear his own burden. No one will be, in his own 


gradually from the habit of glorying; 6 yap 
ecsiovels (Ly TOU TANnTLOV ws 0 Papioaios, KaTa= 


1Comp. Calvin and others; also Reith- 
mayr. 

2 Matthies. 

3 Bernhardy, p. 15. 


Kavxagval, TaXEws Kai TOV Kad’ EavToy EvaBpv- 
veovat anootygeta, ‘‘ For becoming accus- 


4 Tn opposition to de Wette. 

5 Against which Calvin justly pronounces. 

6 Bengel and others; also Olshausen: ‘\a 
thorough self-examination reveals so much 
in one’s own heart, that there can be no 
question of glory at all.’ So in substance 
Chrysostom and Theophylact hold that 
Paul has spoken ovyxataBatikas,“* by accom- 
modation,” in order to wean his readers 


tomed not, as the Pharisee, to exult over 
one’s neighbor, he will abstain quickly even 
from private conceit,” Theophylact. Comp. 
Oecumenius, according to whom the sub- 
stantial sense is: éavrod KarayvwoeTat, Kat 
ovxi étépwv, “He will accuse himself, and 
not otbers.” 
7 Comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ff. 


252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
consciousness, free from the moral burden of his own sinful nature, which he 
hasto bear. The future does not apply to the /ast judgment, in which every 
one will render account for his own sins,’ and receive retribution,? —a 
view which, without any ground in the context, departs from the sense of 
the same figure in ver. 2, and also from the relation of time conveyed in é£e, 
in ver. 4; but it denotes that which will take place in every man after the 
self-examination referred to in ver, 4: he will, in the moral consciousness, 
namely, produced by this examination, bear his own burden ; and that will 
preclude in him the desire of glorying cic tov érepov.—The distinction 
between $dpoc and gopriov (which is not diminutive) consists in this, that 
the latter denotes the burden in so far as it is carried (by men, beasts, ships, 
wagons ; hence freight, baggage, and the like), while the former denotes the 
burden as heavy and oppressive ; in itself the gopriov may be light or heavy ; 
hence : gopria Bapéa,* and zAadpa ; * Whereas the Bapoc is always burdensome. 
The expression is purposely chosen here from its relative character. 

Ver. 6. In contrast to the referring of every one to himself (vv. 4, 5), there 
is now, by the xovwwveitw dé, which is therefore placed emphatically ® at 
the beginning, presented a fellowship of special importance to a man’s 
own perfection, which he must maintain : Fellowship, on the other hand, 
let him who is being instructed in the doctrine® have with the instructor’ in all 
good (ver. 10), that is, let the disciple make common cause (endeavor 
and action) with his teacher in everything that is morally good. So, 
following Marcion (?) (in Jerome) and Lyra, in modern times Aug. 
Herm. Franke (in Wolf), who, however, improperly connects év maow 
ayaboic, With karyyovvr:, Hennicke, de nexu loci, Gal. vi. 1-10, Lips. 1788 ; 
Mynster, Al. theol. Schr. p. 70, Matthies, Schott, Keerl, Diss. de Gal. vi. 
1-10, Heidelb. 1834, Trana, Jatho, Vémel, Matthias ; also not disapproved 
by Winer. Usually, however,* there is found in the words a summons to. 
liberality towards the teachers, so that év raowv ayaboic is taken as referring to 
the communication of everything good,*® or more definitely, of all earthly 
good things,’® or of good things of every kind ;™ and xowwveirw is taken either 
transitively, as if the word were equivalent to ko.vovy : communicet 


nevertheless members of the church endow- 
ed with the xapiopa didackadlas, ‘* charism of 


1 Augustine, c. lit. Petil. iii. 5; Luther. 
2 Jerome, Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin, 


Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michael- 
is, Borger, Riickert, and others ; comp. also 
Hofmann. 

3 Matt. xxiii. 4; Ecclus. xxi. 16. 

4 Matt. xi. 30. 

5 In opposition to Hofmann. 

6 kar’ cEoxnv, ‘‘ especially,” in the gospel; 
comp. 1 Thess. i. 6; Phil. i. 14. 

7 The question, whether the persons here 
meant were permanent teachers of the 
church, or itinerant evangelists, is to be 
answered by saying that neither of these 
two kinds of teachers is excluded. For al- 
though at that time there were no diéacxador, 
“‘teachers,”’ speciaily instituted except the 
presbyters (see on Eph. iv. 11), there were 


teaching,’ who devoted themselves to the 
function of continuous instruction in their 
churches. Rom. xii 7. 

8 As by Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Olshausen, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, 
Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and 
others. 

° Ewald. 

10 in omni facultatum genere, ut usu 
venit,” ‘“‘in every kind of resources, as the 
case may be,” Bengel. 

41 Ellicott, Hofmann. 

12 So usually, also by Ewald. 

13 As to the distinction between the two, 


see especially Thuc. i. 39. 3. 


CHAP VIZ, 6: 


(which, however, cannot be conclusively established in the N. T., not even 
in Rom. xii. 13 ; and in the passages from Greek authors! it is to be referred 
to the idea : ‘‘ to share with any one”), or intransitively :? ‘let him stand in 
Sellowship,” namely by communication, or in the sense of the participation 
in the teacher, which is perfected év zac ay.* But against the whole of 
this interpretation may be urged : (1) the singular want of connection of 
such a summons, not merely with what goes before,* but also with what 
follows,® wherein Paul inculcates Christian morality generally. (2) Since in 
vy. 1-5 moral faultiness was the point in question, the reference which most 
naturally suggests itself for éy racw ayafoicg is a reference to moral good. 
(8) At the conclusion of this whole section in ver. 10, épyaféueba ro ayabiv 
k.T.A., To ayabdy is nothing else than the morally good. (4) The requirement 
itself, to communicate with the teacher in all good things, would, without 
more precise definition,® be so indeterminate and, even under the point of 
view of the possession as common property, Acts iv. 32,7 which we do not 
meet with in Paul’s writings, so little to be justified, that we cannot 


1Jn Fritzsche, ad@ Rom. III. p. 81, and 
Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 317, Goth. 

2 So Usteri, de Wette, Wieseler. 

3 Hofmann, comparing Rom, xv. 27. 

4The connection with what goes before 
might be dispensed with, for Paul might 
(through é€) haye passed on to a fresh sub- 
ject. Winer, indeed, conceives the con- 
nection to be: ‘“‘cum vv. 4,5 ea tetigisset, 
quae priva sibi quisque habere debeat, nune 
ad haec descendere, quae cum aliis conunu- 
nicanda sunt,’ ‘“‘When yv. 4, 5 he had 
touched on those things which every one 
should have as private to himself, he now 
descends to those which are to be shared 
with others” (comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.) 
But, with the precept of diverality towards 
teachers, so entirely alien to what goes be- 
fore, this connection appears forced ; and 
it would be better to forego any connecting 
link with what precedes (Riickert) than to 
bring out an illogical relation of the con- 
trast. de Wette discovers a satisfactory 
connection with vv. 1-5in the circumstance 
that there, as here, the apostle has in view 
defects of Christian social life. This, how- 
ever, is to specify not a connection, but 
merely a logical category. According to 
Ewald, the previous counsels are to be con- 
ceived as for the most part addressed to 
the Pauline teachers of the Galatians, and 
Paul therefore now adds a word as to the 
correct behavior of the non-teachers also. 
But the former idea is assumed without 
ground in the text, which speaks quite gen- 
erally. According to Wieseler the concep. 
tion is, that the care for worldly mainte- 
nance was a species of the Bapn, ‘‘ burdens” 
(ver. 2), which the readers were to relieve 


them of in return for their being instructed 
inthe word. But those Bap, ‘* burdens,” are 
necessarily of a moral nature, burdens of 
guilt. According to Hofmann, Paul has 
previously exhorted every one to serve his 
neighbor with that which he is, and now ex- 
horts every one to employ that which he 
possesses, aS his Christian position requires. 
A scheme of thought purely artificial, and 
gratuitously introduced. 

5 The sequel down to ver. 10 is indeed re- 
ferred by Luther (most consistently in 1538) 
and others, including Olshausen and de 
Wette, with more or with less (Koppe, de 
Wette, Hilgenfeld) consistency, to the beha- 
vior towards the teachers, by the despising of 
whom Godis mocked, the support of whom 
is a sowing of seed for spiritual objects, 
ete. But looking at the general nature of 
the following instructions, which there is 
not a word to limit, how arbitrarily and 
forced is this view! Not less far-fetched 
and forced is the explanation of Hofmann, 
who considers that, because by means of 
the covvwvety x.7.A. the teacher is enabled to 
attend to his own business, Paul in vv. 7 ff. 
warns against the erroneous opinion that 
people might, without danger to the soul, 
deal lightly with that covvwvety x.7.A.; that 
by means of this kcorvwvetvy people devote 
that which they possess to the Spirit, ete. 

6 Luther, 1538: Paul desires simply, ‘‘w¢ 
liberaliter eos alant, quantum satis est ad 
vitam commode tuendam,” ‘‘ that they liber- 
ally support them, so far as is sufficient for 
the proper maintenance of life,”—an idea 
which is not suggested in the passage. 

7 de Wette. 


204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


venture to attribute it—thus thrown out without any defining limitation— 
to the apostle, least of all in a letter addressed to churches in which misin- 
terpretations and misuse on the part of antagonistic teachers were to be 
apprehended. Through the stress laid by Wieseler on the spiritual counter- 
service of the teacher,’ the expression éy racw ayafoic, seeing that it must 
always involve that which is to be given by the disciples to their teacher, 
is by no means reduced to its just measure (the bodily maintenance as 
recompense for the rvevuatixa received, 1 Cor. ix. 11; Phil. iv. 15); whilst 
Ewald’s interpretation, ‘‘communication in all good things,”* cannot be 
linguistically vindicated either for kowov. or for év.* Paul would have said 
perhaps: xowa roveito 6«.7.2. TOK. TavTa ayabd, or something similar in correct 
Greek. The objection raised against our interpretation,* that it is difficult 
to see why this particular relation of disciple and teacher should be brought 
into prominence, is obviated by the consideration that this very relation 
had been much disturbed among the Galatians by the influence of the . 
pseudo-apostles (iv. 17), and this disturbance could not but be in the high- 
est degree an obstacle to the success of their common moral effort and life. 
But in reference to de Wette’s objection that xovvwveiv, instead of pipetofas, is a 
strange expression, it must be observed that Paul wished to express not at all 
the idea of ppyeicfa, but only that of the Christian xocvwria between disciple 
and teacher. The disciple is not to leave the sphere of the morally good to 
the teacher alone, and on his own part to busy himself in other interests 
and follow other ways ; but he is to strive and work in common with his 
teacher in the same sphere. In this view, the expression is (in opposition 
to Hofmann’s objection) neither too wide nor too narrow. Not too wide, 
because the sphere of moral good is one and the same for teachers and 
learners, and it is only the concrete application which is different. Not too 
narrow, because moral fellowship in Christian church-life finds its most 
effective lever in the fact that learner and teacher go hand in hand in all 
that is good. —6 cary yoievoe rov Adyov).° It is self-evident that Paul means 
only the relation to true, Pauline teachers. —év raaw ayafoic] the sphere, 
in which common cause is made.* <A classical writer would say, tavr@v aya- 
av,” or eic ravra ayabd,? or even repli rdv7wv ay.° On the plural 7a ayafa, as 
applied to moral good, comp. John y. 29 ; Matt. xii. 35 ; Ecclus. xi. 31, 
xvii. 7, xxxix. 4, xiii. 25; and frequently in Greek authors. _ Paul might 
also have written év ravti épyw ayabo 3" but év raow ayaboic is More Compre- 
hensive. The dative 74 xarny. is the dativus communionis, ‘ dative of 
impartation,” everywhere common." [See Note LXXIV., p. 271 seq. ] 

Ver. 7. A warning to the readers, in respect to this necessary moral fel- 
lowship, not to allow themselves to be led astray (by the teachers of error 


1 Comp. also Hofmann. 5 Comp. Acts xvili. 25. 

2 Comp. Grotius: “per omnes res bonas, ® Comp. Matt. xxiii. 30. 
i.e.,non per alimenta tantum, sed et alia 7 Heb. ii. 14; Plat. Rep. p. 464 A; Soph. 
obsequia et officia,” “not only by support, Trach. 548. 
but by other services and offices.” * Plat. Rep. p. 453 A. 

3 — 5, according to Sprachi. p. 484 f. 9 Polyb. xxxi. 26. 6. 


4See Riickert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Wiese- 10 Col. i. 10. 
ler. 11 Dem. 142, wld. 789. 2. 


CHAP. VI, 8. 255 


or otherwise), with very earnest reference to the divine retribution. This 
nearest and easy connection makes it unnecessary to refer back to the whole 
of the section from ver. 1 onward.’ [See Note LXXYV., p. 272.] — pq raav- 
aode] See on 1 Cor. vi. 9. — Oed¢ ob pKtypiverar] God is not sneered at, that 
is, mocked ; He does not submit to it. See the sequel. This mocking of God 
(a more forcible expression of the idea zepafew Oedv) takes place on the 
part of him who, by immoral conduct, practically shows that he despises 
God and accounts nothing of His judgment. On pvxrnpiferv, properly, to turn 
up the nose,* and then to deride, comp. Sueton. Claud. 4 : oxdrrew Kai woxtnpi- 
Cewv, ‘to jeer at and deride.” *—6 yap éav oreipy x.7.A.] Proof for @ed¢ ov 
pouxtnpitera. The identity between the kind of seed sown and the kind of 
fruit to be reaped from it (rovro, this, and nothing else ; for instance, from 
the sowing of weeds no wheat) is a figurative expression for the equivalent 
relation between moral action in the temporal life and the recompense at 
the judgment. * : 

Ver. 8. Ground assigned for the foregoing proposition. ‘‘So it is, sincein 
fact the two opposite sorts of ground which receive the seed will also yield 
two opposite kinds of harvest.” In the words 6 éay oreipy dvdp. rovto k. Depi- 
oer Paul, as was required by the matter which he would figuratively present 
(evil—good), has conceived two different classes of seed, with two sorts of 
recipient soil likewise essentially different ; one class comprises all the 
kinds of seed which are sown to a man’s own flesh, the other class includes 
all those which are sown to the Holy Spirit. He who scatters the former 
class of seeds, and therefore sows to his own flesh, will from this soil, which 
he has furnished with the corresponding seed, reap corruption, etc. There- 
fore we have not here any alteration in the figure, by which Paul leaves the 
description of the seed, and passes over to that of the soi/,° but a proof that 
the state of the case, in accordance with the two kinds of soil which come into 
view, will not be other than is said in ver. 7. Observe the 67, for the most 
part neglected by expositors, which is not explanatory, but causative (‘‘ quo- 
niam,” Vulgate). — 6 oreipwv sic t. capxa éavtov| that is, he who is minded 
and. acts so that his own flesh—his sinfully-determined corporeo-psychical 
nature °—is the element conditioning and prompting his thoughts and ac- 
tions, éavrov is added, because afterwards an objective principle, 7rd rvevua, 
is opposed to this selfish subjective principle.? The idea that eic¢ r. odpka 


1 Wieseler. 

2 Comp. Horat.i. 6. 5; Hp. i. 19. 45. 

8 Sext. Emp. adv. math. i. 217; Job xxii. 
HORSELOVe 150. sil. 8; 3) Ears i, 51 ‘Comp. 
also pukrip, Diog. L. ii. 19; Lucian. Prom. 1 ; 
MuKTyptojos, 2 Mace. vii. 389 ; and puKrypiotijs, 
Athen. iv. p. 182 A, v. p. 187 C. 

4Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 6. The same figure is 
frequently used as to recompense, Hos. viii. 
7; Job iv.8; Prov. xxii. 8; Ecclus. vii. 2; 
Plat. Phaedr. p. 260D; Arist. Rhet. iii. 4; 
Plut. Mor. p. 394.D; Cic. de orat. ii. 65: ‘Sut 
sementem feceris, ita metes,” ‘‘as you 
make the seeding, so will you reap.” 


5 Riickert, Hofmann, according to whom 
it is only this alteration which explains the 
connection with ver. 6. 

6 Comp. v. 16 f. 

7 Luther (1519 and 1524), with strange ar- 
bitrariness, holds that Paul desires to obvi- 
ate the thought ‘‘ de seminatione mascult in 
carnem feminae.”” Butin 1533 he consistent- 
ly abides by the reference to the attitude 
towards the teachers, and explains: ‘“‘qui 
nihil communicat ministris verbi, sed sé so- 
lum bene pascit et curat, id quod caro suadet,”” 
““who communicates nothing to the minis- 
ters of the Word, but only feeds well him- 


206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

éavrov applies to cireumeision’ is entirely foreign to the context. — ¢opdr] 
corruption, destruction,® that is, here, in accordance with the contrast of Cay 
But the suggestion that @Sopdv is used in refer- 
ence to the corruptibility of the flesh,* cannot be entertained, because the 
true Christians who die before the zapovoia partake the lot of corruption, 
and the point of time for the harvest is conceived as not earlier than the 
nearly approaching rapovoia (ver, 9), in which either ¢3opdé or Ca aldvioc will 
be the result of the yudgment. According to de Wette, Paul has chosen this 
expression in order to denote the perishableness of carnal aims, and at the 
same time their destructive consequences for the soul. This is arbitrary. 


The general idea of ¢¥opay obtains its more precise definition simply from 
5 


aiovioc, the eternal azéreca.* 


Coqv atov.° —6 dé oreipwv eig 70 rvevua] No more than in chap. v. does 7d 
wvevua here mean the higher nature of man,® but” it denotes the Holy Spirit. 
Jerome aptly remarks, that for this very reason Paul did not again add éavrob 
(which Ernesti would arbitrarily again supply). The less, therefore, the 
ground for misapplying the passage in favor of the meritoriousness of good 
works. The sense, when divested of figure, is : ‘‘he who is minded and 
acts so that the Holy Spirit is the element which determines and prompts 
odopa and Cay aid- 
viog are conceived as the two kinds of produce which shall have sprung up 
from the two different sorts of recipient soil. 

Ver. 9. Encouragement, not to become weary in that which is meant by 
this second kind of sowing ; 76 kadov rowivrec is the same as would be figura- 
tively expressed by ei¢ 7d mvevua oreipovrec. The autem (dé), which simply 
marks the transition to this summons, cannot be attached to the exhortation 
in ver. 6, as appending to it another.* — ékxcaxouev] As to this form, and 
the form éykax.,! see on 2 Cor. iv. 1. On the ‘‘ slight paronomasia” " in 
kaAdv and éxxaxk., comp. 2 Thess. iii. 18. He who loses moral cowrage (éxxaxe?) 
loses also moral strength (éxAberar). — Kaipo yap idiw] at the time expressly des- 
tined for the reaping (Matt. xiii. 30), by which is meant the time of the 
mapovoia, Which man must await with perseverance in what is good.!? — uy 
éxAvéuevor] not becoming weary,'® which is not to be understood of the not be- 
coming fatigued in the reaping,'4 a contrast being therein discovered either 


him.” — é« tov rvevuatoc Sepioe: x.7.2.| At the rapovoia.® 





self, and attends to what the flesh advises,” 
etc. Comp. Calovius and others ; also Hof- 
mann : he who applies that which he possesses 
to his own flesh, in order to gratify its desires. 
We may add that the Encratites made use 
of our passage (see Jerome) as a ground for 
rejecting sexual intercourse and marriage ; 
holding that he who takes a wife sows to 
the flesh, ete. 

1 Pelagius, Schoettgen; comp. Riickert 
and also Usteri. 

ZROM A Villewe le COleniiar ges) 2 ebeb. lal 2) 
LXX. Ps. cii. 4; Wisd. xiv. 12; Thue. ii. 47; 
Plat. Pol. viii. p. 546 A; and frequently. 

3 The same thought is expressed in 
Rom. viii. 13: et kata oapka Cnre, méAAeTe 


anodvyckew, Comp. ver. 23. 


4 Winer, Schott, Reithmayr, and others; 
comp. also Chrysostom and Theodoret. 

5 Comp. 1 Cor. iil. 17; 2 Pet. ii. 12. 

6 Riickert, Schott, and most expositors 3 
also Ernesti Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 60, I. 
p. 90 f. 

7 So also Wieseler and Hofmann. 

8 See also Rom. viii. 11, 15-17; 2 Cor. vy. 
5; Eph. i. 14. 

® Hofmann. 

10 Lachmann, Tischendorf. 

11 Winer. 

12 Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 15; Tit. i. 3. 

13 Matt. xv. 82; Mark viii.3; Heb. xii. 3; 
1 Mace. iii. 17 ; Wetstein, I. p. 426 ; Loesner, 
p. 336. 

14 Thus expressing the idea: ‘ Nulla erit 


CHAPS Vi.,, LO: 25% 
with the toils of the harvest proper,’ or with the labor of sowing.? Either 
form of the contrast would yield a description of the eternal harvest, which 
would be feeble, superfluous, and almost trifling, little in harmony with the 
thoughtful manner of the apostle elsewhere. We may add, that it is not 
the nature of the harvest (which was obvious of itself from ver. 8), but the 
time of the harvest, which constitutes the point on which the pi éxxak. is 
grounded ; and therefore on ka:p@ idiw Calvin aptly remarks, ‘‘ Spe igitur et 
patientia suum desiderium sustineant fideles et refrenent,” ‘‘In hope and 
patience, therefore, let believers sustain and restrain their longing.” Hence 
py éxAvdu. is rather to be taken as : if we do not become weary in doing good.* 
This denotes the present state, by which the future harvest is conditioned. 
It involves not a clumsy repetition,’ but a reiterated setting forth of the 
condition, urgently emphasizing its importance, by means of a correlate 
word which closes the sentence with emphatic earnestness.° Nor would py 
éxdantévtec have been more correct,*® but on the contrary : ‘‘videndum, quod 
quoque loco tempus vel ferri possit,” ‘‘ we must consider what time in every 
place can be especially admitted,” Herm. ad Viger. p: 773. Ewald’s ex- 
planation : undeniably, that is, necessarily, is without support from linguis- 
tic usage. Hofmann incorrectly makes ju éxAvéuevor begin a new sentence ; 
for Paul always places dpa oiv at the commencement, but here he would have 
fully preserved the emphasis of ju éxA., if instead of dpa oiy he had written 
merely ovv, or merely apa. 

Ver. 10. Concluding exhortation of the section of the epistle which began 
at ver. 6, inferred from the preceding xacp@ yap iia Aepioower py éKA. (apa 
ov). The specialty of this exhortation lies in d¢ Karpov éyouer, which is 
therefore emphatically prefixed : as we have a season suitable thereto.’ This 
seasonable time will have elapsed, when the rapovoia sets in ; we must there- 
fore utilize it as ours by the épyafecfa: 76 ayafdv. The same idea as the 
éEayopalecta T. karpév in Eph. v. 16 ; Col. iv. 5. Hofmann introduces the 
idea, that there will come for the Christians, even before the rapovoia, an 
“hour of temptation,” in which they can only (?) withstand evil, but not 
bestow good one on another. This idea is in opposition to the context in ver. 
9, and is nowhere else expressed ; and its introduction rests on the incor- 
rect explanation of épyd¢. 76 ayafév as referring to beneficence, and on the 
wrong idea that the doing good will become impossible. — é¢ is the usual 
as, that is, as corresponds with and is suitable to this circumstance, that we 


Karpov éxouev.. Others, likewise retaining the signification ‘‘ as,” interpret : 


satietas vitae aeternae,” ‘‘ There will be no 
satiety of life eternal,’’ Calovius. This isthe 
meaning also of Luther's translation: 
“ without ceasing” (Vulgate, non deficientes); 
comp. Estius. 

1 Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius. 

2 Usteri; the two ideas are combined by 
Chrysostom, Clarius, and others. 

3 See Photius in Oecumenius, p. 766 D, 
and Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and 
nearly all modern expositors. 


1? 


4 Usteri. 

° Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 336. 

® Riickert, Hofmann. 

7 For instances of cacpov Exevv, opportunum 
tempus habere, see Wetstein. 

8 Comp. Luke xii. 58; John xii. 35; Clem- 
ent, 2 Cor. 9; ws Exouev Karpov tod iadjnvat, 
eTLS@LEV EavTOVs THO BeparevovTL Mew, “as we 
have opportunity to be healed, let us give 
ourselves to the care of God that healeth,”’ 


258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


prout habemus opportunitatem, ‘‘aswe have opportunity,” that is, when and 
how we have opportunity.!. For this, indeed, no conditional av would be 
necessary ; but how weak and lax would be the injunction ! Besides, xaipév 
has obtained, by means of ver. 9, its quite definite reference. Others take 
oc as causal.? So Koppe, Paulus, Usteri (because we have time and oppor- 


tunity), de Wette ; also Winer, who, however, does not decide between. 


quoniam, ‘‘ since,” and prout, ‘‘as.” But dc, in the sense of because, is no- 
where to be found in Paul’s writings (not even in 2 Tim. i. 3). Most ex- 
positors explain it as so long as,* which, however, it never means, not even 
in Luke xii. 58. —76 ayafév| the morally good, not the useful.* Not merely 
the article, but also the use of the expression by Paul, in definite connec- 
tion with épyafeca, as applying to morality active in works,* ought to have 
prevented the interpretation of 7d dya6év, at variance with the context, as 
benefits.° Hofmann’s interpretation (‘‘do good towards others”), in more 
general terms evading the definite idea, amounts to the same thing. The 
ayaév in this passage is the same as 7d caddy in ver. 9. That which is good 
is also that which is morally beautiful. Comp. especially Rom. vii. 18 f. — 
mp6c| in relation to, in intercourse with : see Winer, p. 378 f. ; Sturz, Lex. Xen. 
IIL. p. 698 ; Bernhardy, p. 265. — rove oixeiove tH¢ rictewc] the associates in the 
Saith, believers, oixeioc, primarily inmate of the house, comes to be used gen- 
erally in the sense of special appertaining to,” without further reference to 
the idea of a house. So with the genitive of an abstract noun, as oikevoz 
@tdocodiac, ‘‘ associates of philosophy” (Strabo, I. p. 13 B), yewypadiac, ‘* of 
geography” (Strabo, I. p. 25 A.), dAcyapyiac, ‘‘ of the oligarchy” (Diod. Sie. 
xiii. 91), and the like in Wetstein, p. 286 ; Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 401.° 
The xiorc is the Christian faith ; those who belong to it are the riorebovrec. 
The opposite would be : rove aAdotpiove tHe miot. The idea that the church 
is the oixoc cov ® is improperly introduced here, in order to obtain the sense : 
“qui per fidem sunt in eadem atque no, familia Domini,” ‘‘ who are by faith 
in the same family of God as we.” For rye riorewe conveys the complete 
definition of rode oixefovue ; and the sense mentioned above must have been 
expressed by some such form as rove judv oixelove THE Tiotewc."! Paul might 
also simply have written xpdc¢ rove muctevovtac ; but the expression oixeiovg 
r. T. Suggests a stronger motive. Among the rao, in relatidn to whom we 
have to put into operation the morally good, those who belong to the faith 
have the chief claims—because these claims are based on the special sacred 
duty of fellowship which it involves—in preference to those who are stran- 


1 Thus Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Zach- 8 Comp. Ta Tis aperfs oixeca, *‘ things con- 


ariae, Hilgenfeld. 

2Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 118; Matthiae, 
p. 1511. 

3So Flatt, Rickert, Matthies, Schott, 
Olshausen. 

# Olshausen. 

5 Rom. ii. 10; Eph. iv. 28. 

6 Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many 
others, including Schott, de Wette, and 
Wieseler. 

7 Gomp. LXX. Isa. lvili. ¥. 


formable with yirtue,” 2 Mace. xv. 12; Ta 
THs Pvoews oikeia, “things conformable with 
the nature,’’? Dem. 1117. 25. 

91 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. iii. 2, v. 6, x. 215 
Bete lite. 

10 Beza; comp. Estius, Michaelis, and 
others, also Schott and Olshausen, Wiese- 
ler, and Ewald, who limits the idea to the 
same church. 

11 Comp. Phil. ii. 30, e¢ al. ; Winer, p. 180, 
rem. 3. 


ee ee” 


CHAP. VI., 11. 259 
gers to the faith, although in respect even to the latter that conduct is to be 
observed which is required in Col. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 12. 


Note. — If the reading épyaéuefa (see the critical notes), which is followed by 
Ewald, were the original one, the indicative would not (with Winer in his 
Commentary, but not in his Gramm. p. 267) have to be taken as a stronger and 
more definite expression instead of the hortative subjunctive (do we therefore the 
good), since this use of the present indicative (Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 559, ad 
Delect. epigr. p. 228 ; Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 109; Bernhardy, p. 396) in non-in- 
terrogative language (John xi. 47) is foreign to the N. T., although opportunities 
for it often presented themselves. The interpretation of the whole sentence 
as an interrogation has been rightly given up by Lachmann (also at Rom. xiv. 
19), because so complete an interruption by a question does not occur elsewhere 
in Paul’s writings, and the addition padiora dé rpic¢ Tove oikeioug Tig TicTEws in- 
dicates that the passage is of the nature of an assertion, and not of a question. 
épydfomefa TO aya)ov would rather represent the matter as actually taking place 
(we do it, we hold it so, it is our maxim), and would thus belong to the ideal delin- 
eation of Christian life common with the apostle ; which might indeed be 
highly appropriate in its place at the conclusion of a discourse as a note of 
triumph, but here, in immediate connection with mere exhortations and injunc- 
tions, would be somewhat out of place. 


Vv. 11-18. Final section of the epistle in the apostle’s own handwriting. 
The main points of controversy are here briefly summed up : then in ver. 17 
a repetition of molestations is deprecated, and ver. 18 concludes with the 
farewell blessing. 

Ver. 11. Not ‘‘anodd verse,” the purport of which is ‘‘ a singular whim: 
on the contrary, in accordance with his well-known manner in other pas- 
sages, * Paul adds to the letter, which up to this point he had dictated,? the conelu- 
sion from ver. 11 onward in his own handwriting. By means of these 
autograph endings the epistles indicated their authentic character.° But 
this close of our epistle, as stringently comprehending all its main points 
once more, was intended to catch the eyes of the readers as something so 
specially important, that from ver. 12 to the end the apostle wrote it with very 
large letters,® just as we, in writing and printing, distinguish by letters of a 
larger size anything that we wish to be considered as peculiarly significant. 
To this point, and consequently to the quite special importance of the addi- 
tion now made at the end, not by the hand of the amanuensis, but by 
his own hand in large writing, Paul calls the attention of his readers, and 


may, however, be doubtful whether Paul 
wrote merely ver. 12 with larger letters, and 


1 Usteri. 
21 Cor: xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18; 2'Thess. iii. 17. 


3 Comp. Rom. xvi. 22. 

4 From 2 Thess. iii. 17 it isto be assumed 
that Paul closed ai his epistles with his 
own hand, even when he does not expressly 
say 80. 

5 See 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17. 

® The principal emphasis is on the word 
mmnaAtkots, Which is therefore placed apart ; 
the secondary stress lies on t7 éuy xerpi. It 


” 


the sequel with his own hand but in his 
ordinary mode of writing, or whether he 
continued the large characters down to 
ver. 16 07 to ver. 18. The internal connec- 
tion of vv. 12-16, the uniform solemn tone 
of these verses down to their solemn con- 
clusion, and the abrupt character of ver. 
17, all unite in inducing us to adopt the 
second view. 


260 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

says: ‘‘ See with how great letters I have written (the sequel, from ver. 12) to 
you with my own hand!” Neither idere’ nor éypapa? is at variance with the 
reference to what follows ; for Paul, following the custom of letter-writers, 
has in his mind not the present point of time, when he is just about to write, 
but the point of time, when his readers have received the letter and conse- 
quently see what and how he has written.* Just in the same way in Philem. 
19, éypaa 7H EuH verpi points to what follows. In keeping with this is the 
similarly common use of éreywa, ‘‘respectu habito temporis, quo alter donum 
accipiebat,” ‘‘ respect being had to the time wherein another received the 
gift.”* Holsten, Voemel, Matthias, Windischmann, Reithmayr, agree with 
our view. Grotius also (‘‘sua manu scripsit omnia, quae jam sequuntur,” 
‘- With his own hand he wrote all that now follows”), Studer, and Laurent 
refer the words to what follows. Grotius, however, contrary to the usus 
loquendi, explains ryAixorc as how much, thus making Paul call attention to the 
length of his autograph conclusion ; and Studer understands it as referring 
to the wnshapeliness of the letters (in opposition to this, see below) ; while 
Laurent,® against the signification of the word, adheres to the qualibus, 
‘* what sort,” of the Vulgate, and is of opinion that Paul wrote this conclusion 
of the letter in the cursive character. Usually, however (as also by Ewald, 
Wieseler, Hofmann [Eadie]), ver. 11 is referred to the whole epistle, which 
Paul had written with his own hand,°® r7A/xore being explained ” as referring 
to the wnshapeliness of the letters,* arising from want of practice in writing 


1 In opposition to Riickert and Schott. 

2 In opposition to Usteri. 

3 Philem. 19, 21; 1 John ii. 14, 21; Acts 
xy. 27, xxiii. 30; Rom. xvi. 22; Thuc. 1.1 
in. ; Isoer. ad Demonic. in. 

4 Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 9. 25; comp. 
Kriiger, § 53. 10. 1. 

5In the Stud. uw. Krit. 1864, p. 644 ff., and 
in his newt. Stud. p. 125. 5. 

8 In adopting this view various grounds 
have been guessed for its autograph com- 
position. Pelagius: ‘‘that Paul desired to 
show that he was not afraid!” Ambrosi- 
aster, comp. Augustine and Michaelis: 
‘that he desired to prove the genuineness of 
the epistle.”” Chrysostom (who, moreover, 
assumes in addition the cause assigned by 
Pelagius), Luther, Calvin, Calovius, and 
many others: ‘‘that his intention was to 
show the Galatians his earnest care for 
them, to make them attentive in reading, 
and the like.’’ Hilgenfeld: ‘‘that he at- 
tached so much importance to the epistle.” 
Ewald: ‘‘that Timothy had not been with 
him just at the time when he composed the 
epistle ; and he thus wished, in the post- 
script written at a somewhat later period, 
to make excuse for the large inelegant 
letters in which the epistle had been writ- 
ten.” Hofmann: “that the autograph writ- 
ing was intended ¢o bring the apostle as it 


were vividly before the eyes of his readers.” 
Hofmann is also of opinion that Paul had 
not elsewhere written with his own hand, 
that he might not needlessly curtail the 
time for procuring his bodily maintenance. 
As if the dictating to the pen of another 
would not have involved just as much loss 
of time! Tertius and Timothy were hardly 
shorthand writers. Or is Paul supposed to 
have been occupied in tent-making during 
the time when he was dictating his letters, 
which presuppose so much abstraction and 
concentration of mental labor? 

7 With Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
lact, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Estius, Winer, 
Riickert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld. 

8 This is not, as is often stated, the view 
of Jerome, who, on the contrary, specifies 
this view only to reject it, and assumes 
that down to ver. 11 the epistle was writ- 
ten by the amanuensis, but after ver. 11 by 
Paul himself in very large characters, in 
order that his readers should recognize his 
genuine handwriting and at the same time 
his solicitous care forthem. Jerome there- 
fore comes nearest to our view, but intro- 
duces into the myAccors purposes which have 
no natural connection with the largeness of 
the characters, and could not, without fur- 
ther intimation, have been understood by 
the reader. Theodore of Mopsuestia ex- 


CHAPS Vi:, 11. 261 
Greek ; or ryiix. ypauu. being explained as: what a large letter I have 
written to you. So most expositors, including de Wette and Hofmann. 
But against this /atter view—although the epistle, notwithstanding 1 Pet. v. 
12, Heb. xiii. 22, would no doubt be long enough for an autograph one— 
may be urged the very use which it assumes of ypdupara for éxoroAyf,* since 
Paul elsewhere always calls an epistle éricroAW ;* and, on the other hand, he 
just as constantly uses the word ypayya, in the singular? and plural,* to ex- 
press the idea of a letter of the alphabet ; and also the decisive consideration 
that the employment of the dative (instrum.), instead of the accusative,* 
would be quite in opposition to all usage.®° The dative would only be 
suitable if, instead of éypawa, rapexadeca perhaps, or some suitable word, 
followed. Against the former interpretation, which refers the word to the 
unshapeliness of the letters, it may be urged that the idea of auopdia is arbi- 
trarily introduced into rydixoc, as this quality is by no means an essential 
characteristic of /arge letters ; secondly, that the charge of want of practice 
in writing Greek cannot be proved. The native of Tarsus and Roman citi- 
zen, who from his youth had enjoyed a learned training in Jerusalem, where 
the Greek language was very current among the Jews’—the man who 
handled with so much delicacy and skill the Greek literary language, who 
was familiar with the works of the Greek poets,* and who was in constant 
intercourse with Greek Jews and Gentiles,—is it to be thought that such an 
one should not have possessed even the humble attainment of writing Greek 
without making the letters of an unshapely size? In Wieseler’s view, the 
large letters were very /egible (for the public reading of the epistle) ; and in 
calling attention to this circumstance, Paul desires to bring into prominence 
his great love for his readers, which shuns no trouble on their account. 
But even thus the matter would amount only toa trifle. The Galatians 
were in possession cf far greater proofs of his love than the size of the char- 


plains it better, likewise understanding 
myAikous ypapmaow correctly (uetGoow éexpy- 
gato ypaupacv, ““he used larger letters’), 
and specifying as Paul’s object that »eAAwv 
catantertat Tav evavtiwoyv, ‘being about to 
assail his adversaries,’ he wished to inti- 
mate that he neither epudpua ovre apverrac 
Ta Aceyoueva, “is ashamed of nor disowns 
what he has said.*”” [See Note LXXVI., 
Deeiesl 

1 Taking the word by itself, there can be 
no doubt that ypaupa (scriptwm, 2 Tim. iii. 
15, John y. 47) may, according to the con- 
text, mean epistle, so that in the plural it 
would denote epistolae (Acts xxviii. 21, and 
often in Greek authors), but may also 
apply to a single epistle. Thus, for instance, 
Thue. vii. 8. 3, where émcaroAy is used short- 
ly before ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 26, where émuaroAy 
occurs immediately after; Xen. Eph. ii. 5 
and Locella én Joc. Comp. also Luke xvi. 6; 
i Mace. iv. 10, 14: Ignat. Rom. 8, ad Polye. 7. 

SGOT Ayano a Svdais se) COLA ial esteem! Oe 


2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 14, 17. 

3 Rom. ii. 27, 29, vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. 

42 Cor. iil. 7. 

5 Acts xxiii. 25; Rom. xvi. 22; 2 Pet. iii. 1. 

® Quite irrelevantly Hofmann compares 
the usage of combining a verb with the 
abstract noun derived from it in the dative 
(Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 159); and just as 
irrelevantly the expression oye, 
Matt. viii. 8 (see on this passage), Luke 
vii. 7. Not even that use of civety Aoye, in 
which it may denote to deliver as an orator 
(Kriiger on Thue. i. 22. 1), would here be 
analogous. Only such phrases as, @.9., 
Xpvcois ypappace ypaherr, to write with golden 
letters, Lucian. Alex. 433; peyadots yeaum. 
avaypapew, to write down in large letters, 
Gymn. 22; ypéppacw “EAAnveKots, Luke xxiii. 
38, Elz.; douvcxiors ypaup., Soph. Hragm. 
460 D, really correspond. 

7 See Hug, Hin. I. § 10. 

8 See on Acts xvii. 28. 


elretv 


262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


acters in his own handwriting, which, besides, might be something very 
different from legibility. 

Ver. 12.’ All those whose wish and will are directed to making a fair show in 
the flesh, that is, to the having a specious appearance, while they are involved 
in fleshly habits,—this class of men force circwmeision wpon you, and they do 
so solely for the reason that they may not bring on themselves persecution on 
account of the cross of Christ. This persecution they would incur on the part 
of the Jews, if they preached the cross of Christ and at the same time re- 
jected circumeision ; whereas, by insisting on circumcision, they disarmed the 
zeal of the Jews for the law,? and removed from the cross of Christ all occa- 
sion of their experiencing persecution for it. In order to understand the 
passage rightly, we must note that the emphasis is on eizpocwxycar (not on 
év capki) : they desire to combine a@ pleasing exterior with an unspiritual, 
carnal state of life, in which they really are. Thus is characterized the hyp- 
ocritical conduct of these people, whose jesuitry makes them resemble the 
ragowe Kexoviauévore (Matt. xxiii. 27; comp. Acts xxiii. 3). So many as 
belong to this dissembling class, they constrain you to be circumcised !— ev- 
mpdouwroc| speciosus facie, ‘* fair of face,” sometimes applied to actual beauty of 
person,® and sometimes to a mere specious appearance,°® is very commonly 
used among Greek authors ;’ but eizpocwreiv is not preserved elsewhere in 
the literary language.* — év capxi] is the element of the sinful nature of man,® 
in which, instead of being renewed and refined by the Holy Spirit, those 
hypocrites are found living, and at the same time endeavor to give to them- 
selves a good coloring which would prepossess the opinion of others in 
their favor. The juxtapositicn of the words, ‘‘to look fair in the flesh,” 
reveals the moral contradiction in their nature, and delineates their whole 
portraiture, as if with one sharp touch, indignantly, vigorously, and appro- 
priately. The words are usually explained : ‘‘those who desire to be well- 
pleasing by means of outward carnal things, such as cireumeision and the observ- 
ance of the ceremonial law generally.” © Of course év capxi might, ex adjuncto, 
obtain the sense, by means of circumeision and observance of the law," but in 
this passage the context suggests no ground for thinking of anything else 
than that which was just shortly before meant by cdps, in the contrast 
drawn between cap and rveiva.” And how feeble and inexpressive, when 
placed at the commencement of so energetic a passage, would be the de- 
scription of the misleaders which this interpretation would yield! Holsten 
interprets in a similar way, but develops the sense more accurately, and 
takes év capxi as the sphere in which the evzp. manifests itself, ‘‘all who 


1As to vv. 12-16, see the excursus of 8 In Dion. Hal. iii. 11 we find e’rpocwria ; 

Holsten, 2. Hoang. d. Paul u. Petr. 343 ff. in Symmachus, Ps. exli. 6, evmpotwmtadyaar, 
2 Comp. on v. 11. Comp. dawompocwzretv, Cic. Att. vii. 21, Xiv. 
3 Note the critically correct position of 21; cexvompoowmey, Arist. Vud. 363. 

the 7. 8 Ver. 8, iii. 3, v. 17. 
4 Comp. 2 Cor. v. 12. 10 Riickert ; comp. Beza, Gomarus, Koppe, 
5 As Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10. Rosenmiiller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, 
6 As Herod. vii. 168 ; Dem. 277. 4; Lucian. Schott, Olshausen, and others. 

Ferm. 51. 11 Comp. Rom. ii. 28. 


7 Comp. Gen. xii. 11. 12 Comp. Wicseler. 


CHAP Wily elo. 263 


desire a fair show in the fleshly domain ;” this applies in the concrete to cir- 
ewmeision, which could have true significance only as a sign of inward right- 
eousness,! but to which these persons adhered ‘for its fair show of righteous- 
ness.” But it is not until ver. 13 that caps obtains its reference in harmony 
with the text to circumcision ; in respect to which, moreover, the idea, that 
circumcision is the seal of rightcousness, 1s not at all intimated in the connec- 
tion of our passage. Lastly, Chrysostom and his successors, Erasmus, 
Calvin, Estius, Grotius, and others, have assigned to év capxi the unmeaning 
sense xap’ avOpdxoc ; and Hofmann has arrived at the trifling interpretation, 
that the idea meant was ‘‘a@ pleasing cheerfulness of outward appearance, 
springing from and testifying to a natural amiability, to which the opponents 
of the apostle aspired : they would fain appear with the expression of natural 
amiability.” Thus the description of the opponents placed at the head of 
this final outburst, so full of holy severity and indignation, would simply 
amount to the assertion of an amiable bonhommie, ‘‘ good-fellowship,” by which 
they were impelled. Holsten justly designates this view as inconceivable. 
[See Note LXXVII., p. 272. ] — avayxdfovow] they are occupied with, busy 
themselves in, forcing circumcision upon you.* As to the idea of dvayxag. 
see on Matt. xiv. 22.3— pévov wwa] merely from the (self-interested) motive, 
that they, ete. —76 otavp@ tov Xpiorov| that is, on account of the cross of 
Christ, because they preach Christ as erucified. The instrumental dative 
denotes the cause of the persecution. See Rom. xi. 20; 2 Cor. ii. 12; 
Bernhardy, p. 101 f. ; Winer, p. 202 f. So most expositors, including 
Riickert, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hil- 
genfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann. But others explain the words according to 
the idea of the rafjuata Xpiorov :* “ne participes fiant suppliciorum Christi,” 
‘“‘lest they may become partakers of Christ’s sufferings,” Winer ; comp. 
Jerome, Luther, Grotius, Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, Morus, de Wette, 
Ewald. The evident reference to v. 11° is decidedly opposed to this inter- 
pretation, even apart from the singular nature of the idea 76 oravpw 
doxecbae (Paul would have written raic¢ @Aiecr or the like). 

Ver. 13. They have no other design than merely that stated in ver. 12 
(iva TH oTavp x.7.2.). For so far from its being their aim, by the enforce- 
ment of circumcision, to re-establish the observance of the law among you, 
not even the circumcised (who are in question) themselves, for their own part, 
keep the law, but dv avOperivyy giAotiuiav tavta wavra yivera brép apeckeiac TOV 
axiotev, ‘‘ through human ambition all this is done to please the unbeliev- 
ing,” Chrysostom. —oi sepiretunuévor] is said contemptuously, and with 


1 Rom. iii. 25 f. been to the Jewish Christians an obscure 
2 See Bernhardy, p. 370. point, and in presence of the Pauline 
3 Comp. ii. 3, 14. churches a painful wound, by the recollection 
4 See on 2 Cor. i. 5; Col. i. 24. ‘ of which they were, in a metaphorical 


®* Holsten holds the peculiar view, that sense, persecuted. But what plain reader 
what is in y. 11 expressed objectively, re- would have been able to unriddle a sense 
ceives herea subjective turn: ‘in order that so enigmatically wrapped up—a sense which 
they (those who are offended) should no more Paul might easily have expressed in clear 
be persecuted through (the offence at) the words? 
cross.” The otavpos 7. X. had, in his view, 


264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 

indignation, of the fraternity of the false apostles, of whom it might at 
least have been expected that they themselves would combine obedience to 
the law with their being circumcised.’ But the ground for their non- 
observance of the Mosaic law is conceived by Paul to be, neither their dis- 
tance from Jerusalem,’ nor the general impossibility of a complete fulfilment 
of the law *— both of which would be exculpatory, and wholly unsuited to 
the idea of the worthlessness of the persons concerned, —but their hypo- 
critical badness.* It is true that, among the Jews generally, notwithstanding 
their self-conceit, there was a deficiency in their obedienceto the law ;° but 
an observance of the law might have been expected at all events from these 
repiteTunuévot, Who were such champions for circumcision and insisted on it 
so much (ver. 12). Yet not even they themselves, etc. —iva év rH byer. capki 
xavy.| The cap£ is not to be here taken again in an ethical sense, as in ver. 
12 ;° but, according to the close and definite connection with repitéuvecbat, it 
must be taken as referring to the corporeal nature, so far as it is in it that 


circumcision takes place.’ 


1As at any rate the false teachers are 
meant, and these were Jewish Christians, 
the reading vepitewvouevor is plainly absurd. 
They were, in fact, not subjected to circum- 
cision (Reithmayr), but circwmcised, and 
could not therefore be designated, ‘* accord- 
ing to their quality as Jews” (Moeller on de 
Wette), aS mepitenvouevor. (present). See 
especially Reiche, p. 93. The idea that these 
men were formerly Gentiles, part of whom 
were still on the point of accepting circum- 
cision, and that their adherents are included 
(de Wette), is quite as unhistorical (see Acts 
xv. 1,5; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Acts xi. 20-22) as the 
expedient of Hilgenfeld is groundless : that 
among those false teachers (“the circum- 
cision-people’’) the act of circumcision had 
still continued, not merely outwardly in the 
reception of the newly-born and proselytes 
(in that case Paul must have said ot wepitép- 
vovtes), but also inwardly, by virtue of the 
significance ascribed toit. In his Zeitschr. 
1860, p. 220, Hilgenfeld appeals to oi mepitep- 
vowevo. in the Act. Petr. et Pauli, 63; but 
wrongly, because there (see the sequel) the 
subject is moral circumcision. The view of 
Neander is also mistaken, p. 3866. Accord- 
ing to Wieseler and Matthias, who likewise 
read wepitewvouwevor, the meprtemvowevor Were 
those among the Galatian Gentile Christians, 
who, led away by the pseudo-aposties, 
allowed themselves to be circumcised. In that 
case we must with these expositors make 
the seducers themselves, the pseudo- 
apostles, the subject of deAovow., But this 
view is intolerable ; how could Paul enable 
the reader to guess this change of subject ? 
The subject of @vAadco. must also be the 
subject of déAovowv, or else Paul must have 
written as awkwardly as possible. Conse- 


The emphasis is, however, on ierépa ;* hence 


quently the subject of both the verbs can 
only be the false apostles, who, however, 
were mepiteTuymevor, and not mepiTenvopevor. 
—Hofmann and Holsten are of opinion that 
the present participle is intended to denote 
the Jews generally, inasmuch as circumcision 
wasinuse among them. Against this view 
it may be decisively urged, that the subjects 
of the following S%éAovew can be no other 
than ot mepitenvomevor, and thus likewise the 
Israelites generally (as Hofmann consis- 
tently explains it); nevertheless these 
Bedrovtes (ver. 13) must necessarily be the 
very same as those to whom the #eAovew in 
ver. 12 applies, and therefore not the Jews 
generally, but the Judaistic adversaries. 
Moreover, to these only is the ovde, not even, 
suitable, which presupposes in those con- 
eerned a higher degree of obligation than in 
the case of others who were bound to obey 
the law. The forced expedient of Holsten 
is highly arbitrary: that Paul included the 
false teachers (consequently, according to 
our reading and interpretation, the wepitet™ 
pneevor) in the category of those circumeising 
themselves (and therefore the mepitenvome- 
voc). Comp. Stallbaum, ad Huthyphr. p. 12; 
Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 618. 

2 Theodoret and others ; also Schott. 

3 Jerome, Estius; comp. Usteri. 

4 Comp. ver. 12. 

5 Rom. ii. 17-23. 

6 Wieseler, comp. Ewald. 

7 Eph. ii. 11; Col. ii. 13. 

8 Not on oapxi (Matthias, Holsten), as if 
Paul had written t7 capki vuev. Comp. 
2 Cor. viii. 8, Ram. xi. 31, 1 Cor. xv. 31, where 
the pronoun, rarely used by Paul, is like- 
wise emphatic. 


CHAP: VI.; 14. 265 


Olshausen is the more wrong in finding a contrast—which is quite out of 
place here—to the souls, which those false teachers ought to have sought 
after. The antithetic element of 77 iver. lies in the conceit of the meputer- 
unuévoe as to their own circumcision, as the correlate of which the circum- 
cision of the Galatian Gentile Christians, to be effected by them, was to be 
the subject of their boasting. But this sentence of purpose is parallel to 
the iva 7@ oravpé x.t-A. contained in ver. 12, seeing that the pseudo-apostles 
in fact by this intended boasting—of their diffusion of theocratic Judaism 
by the circumcision of Gentile Christians which they procured—thought to 
avert the persecutions of the Jews ; Theophylact : iva év r@ kataxérrew tiv 
buetépav cdpka KavyjowvTa a¢ diWackador budv Kai pwabytac buac éyovtec, ‘* that 
in cutting your flesh they may boast that they are your teachers and have 
you as disciples.” It is a cavyaofa, inthe face not of heathenism,' but of the 
non-Christian Judaism, from whose side the persecution on account of the 
cross of Christ (ver. 12) was threatened. 

Ver. 14. By way of contrast, not to the national vanity of the Jews,? but 
to the cavyacba: which the pseudo-apostles had in view, Paul now presents his 
own principle: ‘‘ from me, on the other hand, far be it to glory, except only in 
the cross of Christ.” — éuot yi yévotro kavy.| mihine accidat, ut glorier, ‘‘ to me 
let it not happen to glory.” On-this deprecating expression with the injini- 
tie, comp. LXX. Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16 ; 1 Macc. xiii. 
5, 9, 10; Ignat. Hph. 12; Xen. Cyr. vi. 3.11: 6 Zed péyore, AaBeiv por 
yévoito aitév, Anab. i. 9.18 ; Dem. xxxiii. 25 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 
366. —In the words «i py év 76 otavpm down to kécuw, Observe the defiant 
enthusiasm, which manifests itself even in the fulness of the expression. 
How very different the conduct of the opponents, according to ver. 12 ! 
Nothing but the crossof Christ.is to be the subject of his cavyacfa ; nothing, 
namely, but the redemption accomplished on the cross by Christ constituted 
the basis, the sum, and the divine certainty of his faith, life, hope, action, 
etc.* Thus it isa truly apostolic oxymoron: kavyacba év TH oravpd. The 
cross is ‘‘ 7d Kabynua Tov Kavynudtor, ‘‘ the boast of boasts,” Cyril. — dv ob 
éuol Kdouocg éotatp. Kayo TO Kdoum] reveals the cause why he may not glory in 
anything else: ‘‘ through whom the world is crucified to me, and I (se. éorai- 
poua) unto the world,” that is, ‘‘by whose crucifixion is produced the 
result, that no internal fellowship of life longer exists between me and the 
world : it is dead for me, and I forit.”. By Calvin, Bengel, Winer, Usteri, 
Hofmann, Holsten, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others, dv ov is referred to the 
eross. But it is more pertinent to refer it to the fully and triumphantly ex- 
pressed subject immediately preceding, tov cupiov 7uav'Inoov Xpictow :* through 
whom, that is, according to the context, by means of whose crucifixion. [See 
Note LXXVIII., p. 272.] This effect is dependent on the inward fellow- 
ship with the death of Christ ° commenced by faith, and maintained by the 


1 Holsten. 4 Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Luther, and 

2 Hofmann, in accordance with his in- many others, including de Wette, Ewald, 
terpretation of ver. 13. Wieseler. 

Comp. Phils iwi WwW fi; 2iCor) yo 15) ff; 5 ii. 19 f.; Rom. vi. 


1 @or: 1. 23; il: 2; e¢ al. 


266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

Holy Spirit. By this fellowship Paul is transplanted into an entirely new 
relation of life, and feels that all the previous interests of his life are now 
stripped of their influence over him, and that he is now completely inde- 
pendent of them.’— éyo/] for me, denotes the ethical reference of the rela- 
tion. See Bernhardy, p. 84. —x«écuoc* finds its explanation from ver, 15 
(obre mepitouy, odTe axpoBvoria), namely, the organic totality of all relations aloof 
jrom Christianity, looked upon, indeed, as a living power, which exercises 
authority and sway over the unconverted, but in the case of the converted 
has become dead through his admission into the fellowship of faith and life 
with the crucified Lord ; that is, has ceased to influence and determine his 
thoughts, feelings, and actions. Thus the world is crucified to him by 
means of the crucifixion of Christ.* — kay 76 xécuw] for the cessation of the 
mutual fellowship of life is meant to be expressed, and the matter to be 
thus wholly exhausted. 

‘Ver. 15. Tdép] introduces an explanatory reason assigned, not for the: 
Kavyaoba év 7g otravpg,° which has already received its full explanation in 
the relative sentence v ov «.7.4., but for the just expressed 6? ob éuot Kéopoc 
x.7.A. This relation of his to the world cannot indeed, according to the 
axiom oie mepitouy x.t.A., be other than that so expressed. In justification 
of this reference of yap, observe that repitou# and axpoBvoria comprehend the 
two categories of worldly relations apart from Christianity, which had so 
prominently re-asserted themselves in those very Galatian disturbances 
(comp. v. 6). For neither circumcision availeth, nor uncircumeision, but a new 
creature :® that is, ‘for it is a matter of indifference whether one is circum- 
cised or uncircumcised; and the only matter of importance is, that one should 
be created anew, transferred into a new, spiritual condition of life.” As to the 
form and idea of kaw7 kricic, see on 2 Cor. v.17. As characteristics of the xacvy 
xriowc, we find, according to ii. 20, the (7 dé év Zwoi Xprorde ; according to ill. 27, 
the ‘‘having put on Christ ;” according to v. 6, miotuc dv ayarye évepyoupévn 5 
according to Eph. ii. 10, the repurareiv év épyore ayaboic ; and according to 
1 Cor. vii. 19, r/pyow évtoAdv Ocov. In the new man (Col. iii. 10), Christ 
determines all things ; the new man is cipdvto¢g tic avaordcewe of Christ 
(Rom. vi. 5), set free by the Spirit from the law of sin and of death (Rom. 
viii. 2), a child and heir of God (Rom. viii. 16 f.). That this principle, 
moreover, was that of the Christian point of view, was self-evident to the 
reader ; without again adding év Xpwor@ ‘Ijcov, as in v. 6 (see the critical 


1 Comp. Phil. iii. 7 ff. 


5 fofmann, Matthias, Reithmayr, and 
2 Without the article ; see Winer, p. 117. ; 


others. 


3 Comp. Col. ii. 20; Eph. ii. 2 f.; 1 Cor. vii. 
31, 33, 34; Jas. iv. 4; 1 Johnii. 15 f. 

4 Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13; 2 Thess. i. 12; “‘nec 
malis illius territor, nee commodis titillor, 
nec odium metuo, nec plausum moror, nec 
ignominiam formido, nee gloriam affecto,” 
“T am neither terrified by its evils, nor 
eratified by its advantages, nor do I fear 
its hatred, nor do I care for its applause, 
nor dread its shame, nor grasp after its 
glory,” Erasmus, Paraphr. 


6 It is stated by Syncell. Chron. p. 27 (ed. 
Bonn, p. 48), and Phot. Amphil. 183, that 
Paul derived this utterance from the 
apocryphal Apocalypsis Mosis. It is pos- 
sible that the same thought occurred in 
that book; but it is certain that Paul 
derived it from his own inmost conscious- 
ness. It may have passed from our 
passage into the amoxdAvipus Mwtioéws. Comp. 
Liicke, Hinl. in d. Offend. Joh. I. p. 232 f. 


CHAP: VIL, 16: 207% 
remarks), Paul has rendered this Christian axiom the more striking by set- 
ting it down in an absolute form. It stands here as his concluding signal of 
triumph. ; 

Ver. 16. The heart, full of the great truth in ver. 15, has now a wish of 
blessing for all who follow it in their conduct. The simple and, carrying 
on the train of thought and linking it with ver. 15, serves to express this 
wish. A reference to ver. 14, so as to connect our verse with the wish 
therein contained,’ is not required by «ai, and is forbidden by the importance 
of ver. 15, which would in that case have to be reduced to a mere paren- 
thetical insertion. — The emphasis lies not on rotrw, but on 76 kavéve ;? for 
it is the very canonical character of the saying in ver. 15 which has to be 
brought out : ‘who shall walk according to the guiding line, which is here- 
in given.” We are prohibited from assigning to caver the non liter mean- 
ing rule, mavim (as is usually done ; see Schott in loc.), by the tigurative 
ororyqoovolv, Which requires the literal meaning guiding line (2 Cor. x. 13 ff.), 
that is, in this passage, a line defining the direction of the way ; as such, the 
maxim expressed in ver. 15 is placed before them. As to oroiyen4 comp. on 
v. 29. The anacoluthic nominative boo. x.7.2. has rhetorical emphasis, di- 
recting the whole attention of the readers first to the subject in itself which 
is under discussion.* The future oroiyjo.* applies to the time of receiving 
the letter.° Paul hopes that the letter will have a converting and strength- 
ening effect upon many readers, but makes the question, who should be 
warranted in applying to himself the concluding blessing, depend on the 
result. —eipfvy ém airovce Kai éAeoc] se. ein,® welfare (DVI [peace] ; see on 
Eph. vi. 23; John xiv. 27) on them, and mercy (Tittm. Synon. p. 69f.). 
Comp. 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2; Jude 2; 2 John 3, in which passages 
éheoc stands first. Here it follows after, not because Paul intended at first 
to write eipivy only,’ nor because in éAeo¢ he had specially in view the day of 
judgment,® which indeed is expressly added in 2 Tim. i. 18, but because 
he has thought of the effect produced before the producing cause. What 
welfare it is that Paul wishes—namely, all Messianic welfare—is obvious of 
itself. The peace of reconciliation forms a part of it. édeoc is, moreover, 
to be considered as neuter, because Paul throughout so uses it ;° although 
the neuter form, which very often occurs in the LXX., is but very rarely 
found in classical authors.!° —In éz’ abrobc is implied the idea that welfare 
and mercy come down upon them from heaven.!! — kai éxi tov "IopayA tov Ocoi'| 
That this is a reminiscence of Ps. cxxv. 5, exxviii. 6, could only be as- 





1 Hofmann. 

2 Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 19. 

3 Comp. on Matt. vii. 24, x. 14; Johni. 12; 
Acts vii. 40. 

4 Comp. v. 10. 

5 Comp. Tod Ao7od, ver. 17. 

® Taken as a wish of blessing, the thought 
harmonizes more naturally with the conclu- 
sion of the epistle, than if itis taken as an 
affirmation (de Wette, éora: or éoriv). Chry- 
sostom and Theophylact appear to have 
supplied écrac; but Theodoret takes it as 


wish: érnvéato tov EXcov kK. THY elpyvyy, ‘* He 
prays for mercy and peace.”’ 

7 So, arbitrarily, Olshausen. 

8 Hofmann. 

9 Even in Tit. iii. 5 it is neuter, according 
to decisive testimony. 

10 See Dindorf, ad Diod. iii. 18 ; Kiihner, I. 
p. 396, c. ed. 2. 

11 Comp. Luke ii. 25, 40, iv. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 
9; Mark i. 10; Acts xix. 6, e¢ al. 

12 Theophylact, Erasmus, and others ; 
also Riickert, Schott, de Wette, Reiche. 


268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

sumed without dealing arbitrarily, if, instead of kai éx? roy Iop. rod Ocoi, 
Paul had written : eipyvy éxi tov Iopay2.! which, after the instruction given 
by him mm iy. 21 ff., he might have written without any danger of misunder- 
standing. Still less can the expression be referred to Ps. Ixxiii. 1 ; for 
which purpose Hofmann employs an impossible interpretation of the He- 
brew text of the passage. The Israel of God, that is, as contrasted with 
Jacob’s bodily descendants as such,’ the Israelites who belong to God as His 
own, and therefore form the real people of God ideally viewed,? are at any 
rate the true Christians.* But according as «ai is taken either as explanatory 
or as conjunctive, we may understand either the true Christians in general, 
Jewish and Gentile Christians,* or the truly converted Jews.* If we adopt 
the litter interpretation, we must either ® refer the foregoing éco: and aivtobe 
to the Gentixe Christians,—a view which is, however, decisively at variance 
with the upiversal 6cor, and with the description excluding any national 
referenca, 7 kavéve ToiTw orovy. —or™ we must explain the train of thought 
as follows: ‘Salvation be upon all true Christians, and more especially (to 
mention these in particular ; see on Mark i. 5, xvi. 7) on all true Jewish 
Christians !” But however near Paul’s fellow-countrymen were to his heart 
(Rom. ix. 1), he not only had no ground in the context for bringing them 
forward here so specially ; but any such distinction would even be quite 
improperly introduced—especially in the deeply-impassioned close of the 
letter—in presence of churches which consisted principally of Gentile 
Christians and had been involved by Jewish interference in violent contro- 
versies. And even apart from this, no reader to whom the teaching of the 
apostle as to the true Israelites was familiar *® could think that rév "Iop. row 
Ocov referred to Jewish Christians only ; this would be opposed to the specific 
conception of Paul on this point. We must adhere, therefore, to the expli- 
cative view of «ai as the correct one,® and indeed, namely, so that it intro- 
duces an appropriate, more precise description ” of the subjects previously 
characterized. Hofmann is wrong in objecting that the epexegetical kai is 
always climactic." Moreover, the designation of all those, who shall walk 


“Comp. Rom: ix. 63 1 ‘Cor. x. 18; Phil. 
iii. 3. 

2 Comp. also John i. 48. 

3 Not the Jews (Morus), nor even the 
pious Jews,—those, namely, who have not 
rejected the gospel out of stubbornness, and 
permit the hope of their coming to recog- 
nize the rule expressedin ver 15 (Reiche, 
p.97 f.). The apostle, according to his whole 
system, could not understand under the 
ideal Israel of God any others than believers 
(iii. 7, 29, iv. 26; Rom. ix. 6-8). To him the 
kay Ktiots in Ver. 15 Was not conceivable 
otherwise than as necessarily conditioned 
by faith (iii. 28; Eph. ii. 10); hence he could 
not expect of any Jew not yet converted, 
however pious he might be as an observer 
of the law, that he would walk according 
to the canon of ver, 15. 


4 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, 
Pareus, Cornelius & Lapide, Calovius, Baum- 
garten, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, Winer, 
Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Wieseler, and others [Alford, Lightfoot]. 

5 Ambrosiaster, Beza, Grotius, Estius, 
Schoettgen, Bengel, Riickert, Matthies, 
Schott, de Wette, Ewald, Reithmayr, and 
others [Ellicott, Eadie]; Usteri does not 
decide. 

6 With Grotius, Schott, Bengel, Ewald. 

7 With Riickert, Matthies, de Wette, 
Reithmayr, and others. 

8 See ili. 7, iv. 21 ff. 

91 Cor. iii. 5, viii. 12, xv. 88; John i. 16. 

10 Hartung, Partikell. 1. p. 145f.; Winer, 
p. 407. 

11 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 838. 


CHAP) Vin, LT: 269 
according to that entirely anti-Jewish rule of conduct, as the Israelites of 
God, forms as it were the final triumph of the whole epistle over the Juda- 
istic practices, the very aim of which was to assert the title of the "Iopay 
xara capxa to the heritage of’ salvation. Hofmann is entirely mistaken in 
his view that «ai is even, and that the Israel of God are the Jew- Christians, 
so that Paul expresses the idea that he desired to include even these in his 
wish. It was, indeed, obvious that in éx’ airoic they could not be, and were 
not intended to be, ereluded ; but Paul was neither so unwise nor so devoid 
of tact as expressly to state that self-evident point, as if there could possibly 
be any doubt about it. By adding this last word, he would only have of- 
fended the theocratical point of honor (Rom. i. 16). Lastly, Matthias also 
is wrong in supposing that «ai ér? tov “Iap. tov Ocot begins the new sentence 
(ver. 17) : ‘‘ And concerning the Israel of God henceforth let no man,” etc. 
This interpretation ought to have been prevented by the solemn repetition 
of the preposition, which indeed on the second occasion would acquire 
quite a different sense (concerning). 

Ver. 17. Tov Aorov] occurring only here in the N. T., very frequent in 
other authors ; not ceterwm, ‘‘ besides,” so that it would be a formula abrum- 
pendi, ‘‘ formula of transition,” ’ equivalent to ro Ao7év,* but the genitive of 
time ;? and that as denoting ‘‘repetitionem ejusdem facti reliquo tempore,” 
‘*a repetition of the same deed in the time remaining.” * The sense posthae, 
‘‘after this,” might also have been expressed by the acewsative;* but in this case 
a repetitio perpetua, ‘‘constant repetition,” would be meant.® Calvin ex- 
plains : ‘‘as for the rest,” i.e., praeter novam creaturam, ‘‘ beside, the new 
creature.” Comp. Wieseler: ‘‘ quod restat,” ‘‘as to what remains.” In 
this case, either the genitive would stand absolutely: ‘‘ as concerns what re- 
mains ;”" or it would be dependent on xérove. But, looking at the frequent 
use of rod Aorrov as a particle of time, both these explanations would be very 
unnecessarily far-fetched. This remark also applies to the view of Hof- 
mann, who strangely attaches rov Aoxot, notwithstanding the want of an 
antithetical particle, as genitive of the object to xérovec, and conceives 
"Iopaya as again supplied : on account of the Israel, which is not the Israel of 
God. Respecting that Israel, in the apostle’s view, he has not to inquire 
whether it will be injured through the labor to which he is called. As if 
any such cold, remorseless renunciation could be justly attributed to the 
apostle who held his ovyyeveic kata capxa so painfully dear,* and strove in 
every possible way to gain them.® But from the hostile annoyances and 
vexations, which the reader would readily understand to be referred to in 
these words, the apostle desires to remain henceforward exempt ; and this 


1 Bengel, Zachariae, and others. 1 Cor. vii. 29; Ken. Anad. ii. 2. 5, iil. 2.8; 


22 Cor. xiii. 11; Eph. vi. 10; Phil. iii. 1, 
et al. 

3 Kiihner, IT. p. 189) : posthac, henceforward 
(Xen. Anab. v. 7. 34, vi. 4. 11; Plat. Legg. 
Vii. p. 816 D, Demos. p. 385 B; Herod. ii. 
109; and the passages in Wetstein. 

4Hermann, ad Viger. p. 706. 

570 Aourov, Matt. xxvi. 41; Mark xiv. 41; 


Soph. Zrach. 907, 917. 

6 Hermann, /.c. Comp. Ktihner, ad Xen. 
Anab. ii. 2. 5. 

76 5€ Aowrdv, 1 Cor. iv. 2, see Heind. ad 
Charm. p. 89; Matthiae, p. 815. 

SHR OMG Dk lithe, Xe de 

91 Cor. ix. 20. 


270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 

he demands with apostolic sternness. —éy@ yap «.t.2.] the emphasis is on 
éy® : it is not the teachers who are hostile to me, these men afraid to suffer 
(ver. 12), but Z who bear, etc. oriyuara’ signifies marks branded oretched 
in, which, usually consisting of letters,” were put on the body (especially 
on the forehead and hands) in the case of slaves, as the device of their 
masters ;° of soldiers, as the badge of their general ; of criminals, as a 
sign of their offence ; and among some oriental nations also, as a token of 
the divinity which they worshipped.4 Here Paul has had in view the 
marks borne by slaves :° for, according to the immediate context (vv. 14, 
18), Christ is present to his mind as the Lord ; and also in 2 Cor. xi. 23 he 
discerns, in the ill treatment which he has suffered, the proof that he is 
The genitive Incov denotes therefore the Ruler, whose ser- 
vant Paul is indicated to be by his oriyuara ; and because in this case the 
feeling of fellowship with the concrete person of his Master has thoroughly 
pervaded him, he does not write Xpiorov, but’Ijoot.7 Others have explained: 
‘‘notae corporis tales, quales ipse Christus gestavit,” ‘such bodily marks as 
Christ himself bore ;”* but against this it may be urged that Paul has not 
made use of a word which of itself conveys a complete idea (such as rp 
véxpwotv, 2 Cor, iv. 10), but has used the significant criyuata, which neces- 
sarily prompts the reader to ask to whom the person marked® is described 
as belonging. Therefore ’Ijooi is not'® to be considered as the genitive 
of the author. —But what was it that Paul bore in his body as the oriyyata 
The scars and other traces of the wounds and mal-treatment, which he 
had received on account of his apostolic labors... For in the service of Christ he 
had been maltreated (2 Cor. xi. 23), and that so that he must have retained 


dtaxovoe Xpiorov.°® 


"Tyc0v ? 


scars or similar indications. 2 


1 gtiyua is paroxytone ; see Lobeck, Par- 
alip. p. 406. 

2 Ley. xix. 28. 

3In the Hast; but among the Romans 
only in the case of slaves who were sus- 
pected or had run away (asa sign of the 
latter offence, they were by way of punish- 
ment branded with ® or F. U. G.). 

43 Mace. ii. 29; and Grimm in loc. See 
Wetstein, p. 287 f.; Lipsius, Zlect. ii. 15; 


Deyling, OQbdss. TII. p. 423 ff.; Spencer, 
Legg. rit. ii. 14. 1; Ewald, im Apocal. 
p. 151 f. 


5 Not of soldiers, as Grotius (comp. Cal- 
vin), and Potter, Arch. II. p. 7, think ; for 
this must have been suggested by the con- 
text. Wetstein understands sacras notas, 
“sacred marks” (Herod. ii. 113: otlyuarta ipa), 
so that Paul represents Christ ‘wt Dewm, 
quem Tov Kvpiov kar’ e€oxynv yocat,”’ ‘as God, 
whom he calls pre-eminently the Lord.” 
But these sacrae notae are only found among 
particular nations, such as the Persians and 
Assyrians (Plut. Zucudl. p.507 E; Lucian, de 
Dea Syra, 59; comp. also what is related in 
Herod. ii. 113 about a temple of Hercules in 


Some expositors have, however, believed that 


Egypt, and in the Asiatie Researches, vii. 
p. 281 f., about the Indians); hence so foreign 
a custom would not be likely to suggest 
itself to the apostle, nor could it be under- 
stood by his readers without some more 
special indication. 

® Comp. also Rev. Vii. 3. 

7 Comp. on 2 Cor. iy. 10. 

8 Morus, comp. Borger. 

9 otypartias, also ottypatopdpos, “ bearing 
tatoo-marks,”? Lid. and Scott], Polyaen. 
Strat. 1. 24. 

10 With Gomarus and Riickert. 

11 Not as Luther, 1519 and 1524, following 
Augustine, thought: the taming of the 
flesh and the fruits of the Spirit; against 
which the év 76 cwmarti pov is itself decisive. 
In the Commentary of 1538, he understands 
“plagas corport suo impressas et passiones, 
deinde ignita tela diaboli, tristitiam et 
pavores animi,” ‘the blows and sufferings 
impressed upon his body, then too the fiery 
darts of the devil, and sorrow and fear of 
mind,’”’ which thus throws together very 
different elements outward and inward. 

12 See 2 Cor. xi. 24, 25. 


NOTES. 271 


Paul adduces these oriyuata by way of contrast to the scar of cirewmeision ;? 
butthis idea is arbitrarily introduced, and in its paltriness alien to the lofty self- 
consciousness which these words breathe.—Lastly, as regards the sense in 
which the reference of yap is to be taken, many expositors explain it, with 
Grotius : ‘‘ satis aliunde habeo, quod feram,” ‘‘I have enough from other 
quarters to bear.” So, in substance, Vatablus, Bengel (‘‘afflicto non est 
addenda afllictio,” ‘‘afiliction should not be added to affliction”), Morus, 
Winer. But what a feeble reason to assign would this be, either as fretful 
or as even bespeaking compassion, and wholly repugnant at all events to 
the proud feeling of being marked as the dovAoc of Christ !? And the éyé, so 
full of self-consciousness in opposition to the false teachers, is inconsistent 
with this view. No; Paul means*® to say: for J am one who, by being 
marked as the servant of Christ, is in possession of a dignity, which may 
justly exempt him from any repetition of molestations (such as had vexed 
him on the part of the Galatian churches).—On Sacraf{w, comp. Chrysostom : 
ovK elvev éyw, GARG Bactalo, Gorep Tic Ext TpoTaiowe péya dpovar, ‘‘ He does not 
say : ‘I have,’ but ‘I bear,’ as if highly regarding them as trophies.” 

Ver. 18. ‘H ydpic tov xvpiov x.7.2.] See on 1. 6. — pera tov rvebuatoc inav] 
sc. ein. A special design, on account of which Paul did not write merely 
pe? budv,* or wera TavTwv budv,° is indeed assumed by many expositors (that 
Paul desired once more to indicate that salvation does not come from the 
capé),® but cannot be made good ; especially as also in Philem. 25,7 instead 
of the persons simply, we find that with greater significance and fervor the 
spirit of the persons (so also at the close of the Epistle of Barnabas) is 
named, because it is on the rvevua of man (the higher principle of life with 
the voic)® that the grace of Christ works,? when the Spirit of Christ 
takes up His abode in the human spirit and so confers His yap/ovata. Paul 
might also have written werd rovvyov bu., ‘‘ with your souls ;”” but even in 
that case the gracious operation of Christ would have to be conceived as 
issuing from the seat of self-consciousness (the rvevua of man). — adeAdo/| 
The epistle, in great part so severe, ends with a mode of address which still 
breathes unaltered love (1 Cor. xvi. 24). 


Notres By AMERICAN Eprtor. 


LXXIV. Ver. 6. év réowv ayafoic. 


In support of the usual interpretation that refers this passage to the sharing 
of temporal goods, Eadie collects the following places where aya#é has such 
meaning : Luke xii, 18, 19, xvi. 25; and in LXX., 2 Sam. vii. 28 ; 1 Chr. xvii. 


1 Erasmus in his Annot., Beza, Schoettgen, 
Grotius ; comp. Bengel and Michaelis. 

2 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. 

3 “* Veluti trophaea quaedam ostentans,”’ 
‘as though displaying some trophies,” 
Erasmus, Paraphr. 

41 Cor. xvi. 23; Col.iv. 18; 1 Thess. v. 28. 

52 Cor. xiii. 13; Phil. iv. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 
Ase. ii. 15: 


6 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, and 
others ; also Riickert, Usteri, Schott, Ols- 
hausen. 

7 And 2 Tim. iv. 22. 

8 See on Luke i. 46; Rom. i. 4, viii. 10; 
2 Cor. ii. 18, e¢ al. 

® Rom. viii. 10, 16. 

10 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 15; 1 Pet. i. 9, 22, ii. 
125: 


2712 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


26 ; 2 Chr. xviii. 12, 17 ; and Lightfoot cites the Epistle of Barnabas, §19: ‘‘ Thou 
shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbor .. . for if ye are partakers in 
common of things which are incorruptible, how much more of those things 
which are corruptible.” With this agrees the recently found ‘* Teaching of 
the Apostles” (lines 92, 93): ‘Thou shalt not turn away the needy, but shalt 
share (svyxovvevgjoeic) all things with thy brother.” 


PXOXGV Vier are 


Eadie and Sieffert insist on the necessity of regarding this exhortation as in- 
tended to enforce the entire section from ver. 1, ‘‘ treating of duties which 
spring out of love, the fruit of the Spirit, and which are themselves forms of 
spiritual beneficence or well-doing—duties, however, which one may be tempted 
to neglect, or regard only in a negative aspect.”’ 


LXXVI. Ver. 11. rndixowg ypdupacw. 


An analogy is found in the bold signature of John Hancock to the Declara- 
tion of Independence. 


LXXVII. Ver. 12. rizpoowmyjoa: év capt. 


’ There is much force in Sieffert’s exception that Meyer’s interpretation is in- 
consistent with the only grammatical construction allowable here, viz., the 
qualification of the eizpéawroc by év capxi. Meyer's argument would require év 
capki ovTe¢ OY CapKiKxol vtec. Sieffert explains it as conveying the idea of the 
sphere of the external, with special reference to circumcision. This latter, on 
the other hand, seems too narrow. Ellicott interprets év capxi as “ the earthly 
existence and conditions of man ;’’ Alford, ‘‘in outward things which belong 
to man’s natural state ;’ Lightfoot, ‘‘in external rites ;’ Eadie, ‘‘ the unrenew- 
ed nature cropping out under its more special aspect of sensuousness and exter- 
nalism.” ‘* They who wish to make a fair appearance, according to the stand- 
ard of the unrenewed nature,” seems to us to be the meaning. 


LXXVIII. Ver. 14. év 76 oravpé Tov kupiov. 


The Revised Version reads ‘‘ through which,’ thus making the oravpw the 
antecedent ; the marginal reading, however, is ‘‘whom.’’ Meyer’s construction 
is further supported by Ellicott, Alford, and Riddle, and antagonized by Schmol- 
ler, Lightfoot, Eadie, Sanday, and Sieffert. The latter claims that when Meyer 
says ‘by whom, i.e., by whose crucifixion is produced the result,” he virtually 
acknowledges that the context requires that the reference be to the cross ; and 
finds in it an excellent antithesis to the assumptions of the Judaizers who, from 
worldly motives, were unwilling to bear the consequences of the cross. On 
the other hand, both the immediate proximity of the roi Kupiov 7juav ’Inoov 
Xprorod, and the grandeur of Him whom it indicates, renders reference to a 
more remote antecedent very improbable. The question is purely grammati- 
cal. Either construction ultimately ends in the same idea. o7avpoc is referred 
by some to the subjective cross, or the afflictions that attend devotion to 
Christ’s cause, asin Rom. v. 3; but thisis justified neither by the immediate 
context, cf. v. 12, nor by the argument which is to offset the trust in the law, 
by faith that finds its ground of salvation in nothing but the death of Christ. 


TOTO AIL” MND EX. 


A. 


Abba, Father, 175 seq. 

Abraham, his faith, 109 seq., 159 ; the 
promises to, 122 seq. ; his spiritual 
seed, 158 seq.; his two sons, 200 
seq. 

Accountability, personal, 251 seq. 

Advent, Second, of Christ, 13 seq., 38. 

Angels and the law, 132, 160 seq. 


Anathema, 18 seq., 39; justified, 
20 seq. 
Arabia, 29 seq., 40 seq. : 


Atonement, of Christ, 12 seq. ; vica- 
rious, 116 seq., 172, 212 seq. 


B. 


Barnabas, 79. 

Benedictions, 267 seq., 271. 

Benevolence, Apostolic, 48, 74 seq. ; 
to believers, 258 seq. 

Blessing, spiritual, 267 seq. 

Bondage, Spiritual, 167 seq. ; ceremo- 


nial, 179 seq.; warned against, 
219 seq. 

C: = 
Ceremonial observances, 180 seq. 


Christ Jesus, His divinity, 9 ; sub- 
ordinated to the Father, 9 seq., 
37 seq. ; His atoning death, 12 seq., 
38 seq., 172, 212 seq. ; His second 
advent, 13, 38; His active obedience, 
85 seq., 97; our justification, 
87 seq., 114 seq. ; and the law, 91 
seq.; His atoning love, 93 seq. ; 
becoming a curse for us, 116 seq. ; 
as the seed of Abraham, 124 seq., 
160; as Mediator, 134 seq.; His 
pre-existence, 170 seq. ; His incar- 
nation, 171 seq. 

Christianity, its sum and substance, 
90 seq. ; and Judaism, 169 seq. 

Church, The Christian, its collective 
opinion, 55 seq. ; triumphant, 207 
seq. 

Circumcision, in the Apostolic Church, 
57 seq. ; and Christ, 220, 223 seq., 
266 seq.; and the law, 220 seq. ; 


18 








going beyond, 231, 244; urged by 
the dissembling, 262 seq. 
Communism, Christian, 253 seq., 271 
seq. 
Crucifying the flesh, 241 seq. 


D. 


Damascus, 24; Paul’s sojourn at, 29 
seq., 40 seq. 

Days, Observance of, 180 seq. 

Discrepancy, alleged, between Paul 
and Luke, 50 seq., 95. 

Doxology, of Paul, 14. 


EK. 


Election, Divine, 27. 

Envy, illustrated, 190 seq. 

Equality, Spiritual, in Christ, 158 
seq. 

Exclusiveness, Sectarian, 77 seq. 


F. 


Faith, working righteousness, 93 seq., 
105 seq., 109, 159, 222 seq.; receiv- 
ing salvation, 150 seq., 161; and 
baptism, 156 seq.; in love, 223 seq. 

Fellowship, Christian, 73 seq., 96 ; in 
suffering, 248 seq.; in teaching, 252 
seq.; with Christ, 265 seq., 272. 

Festival Seasons, 180 seq. 

Flesh, The, and the Spirit, 235 seq., 
244 ; the fruits of, 238, 245. 

Forbearance, mutual, 248 seq. 

Forgiveness, 247 seq. 

Fraternal union, 73 seq., 96. 

Freedom, Christian, 62 seq., 95, 206 
seq., 210 seq.; steadfastness in, 219 
seq.; in love, 231 seq.; and the mor- 
al law, 237 seq., 244 seq. 


G. 


Galatia, 1 seq. 

Galatians, The, 1 seq.; their churches, 
2 seq.; their Judaizing teachers, 3 
seq.; their fickleness, 15 ; receiving 
the Holy Spirit, 103 seq.; as sons of 
God, 155 seq.; welcoming Paul, 186 


274 


seq., 214 seq.; converted through 
Paul, 195 seq.; not always faithful, 
224 seq. 

Galatians, The Epistle to the, 2 seq.; 
occasion of its writing, 3; object 
of its writing, 4; its contents, 4; 
time of composition, 4 seq.; place 
of writing, 6 ; its genuineness, 7. 

Gentiles, The, saved by Christ, 118 


seq. 

God, the Father, 10, 37 ; His decrees, 
26 seq.; no respecter of persons, 
68 ; His efficacy, 70 ; His promises, 
122 seq.; His unity, 145 seq.; the 
knowledge of, 178 seq., 213 seq. 

Good Works, 85 ; and the law, 89 seq. 

Gospel, The, 16 ; its counterfeit, 17. 

Grace of God, The, 94 seq. 

Growth, Spiritual, 196. 


H. 


Hagar, and Sarah, 201 seq., 215 seq. 

Harvest, Spiritual, 257. 

Holy Spirit, The, received, 103 seq.; 
given unto believers, 175 seq., 218 ; 
in the Christian life, 235 seq., 242 ; 
and the flesh, 235 seq., 244; the 
fruits of, 239 seq. 

Humility, enjoined, 249 seq. 

Hypocrisy, Spiritual, 78 seq., 95. 


ite 


Imputation, 85. 
Independence, Spiritual, 67 seq. 
Inheritance, Law of, 177. 


J. 


James, the brother of Christ, 33 ; his 
Apostolic rank, 71 seq. 

Jerusalem, The new, 206 seq. 

Judaism, 169 seq. 

Judaizing Teachers, 61 seq,, 96. 

Justification by Faith, 53, 84 seq., 93 
seq., 109, 159, 155 seq., 222 seq.; by 
the law, 113 seq., 221 seq. 


K. 


‘Knowledge of God, The, 178 seq., 213 
seq. 


10. 


Law, The, not justifying, 83 seq., 111 
seq.; and good works, 89 seq. ; and 
Christ, 91 seq.; not annulled, 94 
seq.; does not annul the covenant, 
120 seq.; its aim and object, 127 
seq.; its promulgation, 130, 160; 
ordained through a Mediator, 133 
seq.; and God’s promises, 149 ; its 
captivity, 151 seq.; a schoolmaster, 





TOPICAL INDEX. 


154 seq.; read in the church ser- 
vices, 199 seq.; fulfilled in love, 
232 seq.; and freedom, 237 seq., 
244 seq. 

Law of Inheritance, 
Roman, 177. 

Leaven, doctrinal, 226. 

Legalism, Jewish, 81 seq.; its cap- 
tivity, 151 seq. 

Liberty, Christian, 62 seq., 95, 206 
-seq., 210 seq.; steadfast in, 219 seq. ; 
in love, 231 seq.; and the moral 
law, 237 seq., 244 seq. 

Life, moral, 92; in Christ, 92 seq., 
98; in the Holy Spirit, 235 seq., 
241 seq. 

Love, in freedom, 231 seq. ; as the 
royal law, 232 seq. 


Jewish and 


M. 


Mary, the mother of Jesus, her vir- 
ginity, 33, 41. 

Mediator, The, of the law, 133 seq. ; 
as Christ, 134 seq. 

Moses, and the Law, 130 seq. ; as a 
mediator, 140 seq. 

Mount Sinai, 202 seq. 


12 


Parousia, The, 13 seq., 38 ; before and 
after, 167 

Patience, in well-doing, 256 seq. 

Paul, as founder of the Galatian 
churches, 2 seq. ; as an apostle of 
God, 9, 37; salutes the churches, 
11 seq.; pronounces a curse, 18 
seq., 39; and justifies himself, 20 
seq. ; relates his past experience, 
23 seq. ; his sojourn in Damascus 
and in Arabia, 29 seq., 40 seq. ; his 
visit to Cephas in Jerusalem, 31 
seq., 41 ; visits Syria and Silicia, 34 
seq. ; preaches the faith of Christ, 
36 seq. ; his second visit to Jerusa- 
lem, 43 seq., 95 ; receives revela- 
tions, 24 seq., 52 seq. ; his indepen- 
dence, 67 seq. ; as apostle to the 
Gentiles, 70 seq.; his apostolic 
recognition, 73 ; resisting Peter, 75 
seq.; his bodily weakness, 184 
seq. ; converting the Galatians, 195 
seq. ; his tender appeal, 197 seq. 5 
persecuted by the Jews, 228 seq., 
243 seq.; preaching circumcision, 
229 seq. ; his handwriting, 259 seq. 5 
glories in Christ, 265 seq., 272 5 
blesses the believers, 267 seq. ; his 
scarred body, 269 seq. ; his parting 
salutation, 271. 

Persuasion, Spiritual, 225. 

Peter, 71; resisted by Paul, 75 seq. 


TOPICAL 


Poor, The, care for, 48, 74 seq. 

Prayer, to the Father, 175 seq. 

Preaching, a divine calling, 28. 

Pedestination, Divine, 166. 

Promises of God, The, to Abraham, 
122 seq. ; and the law, 149. 

Prophecy fulfilled, 208 seq. 


R. 


Reaping, and sowing, 255 seq. 

Recompense, Moral, 255 seq., 257. 

Redemption, through Christ, 115 seq. 

Regeneration, Spiritual, 266. 

Revelations, of Paul, 24 seq., 52 seq. 

Righteousness, by faith, 93 seq. 105 
seq., 109, 159, 222 seq., 243. 


S. 


Salvation, in answer to faith, 150, 161 
seq. ; through Christ, 155 seq. 

Sarah and Hagar, 201 seq. 

Self-glorification rebuked, 250 seq. 





INDEX. 


Selfishness rebuked, 248 seq. 

Sin, and the law, 129 seq., 160. 

Sonship of believers, 173 seq., 176 
seq. 

Sowing, and reaping, 255 seq. 

Star-worship, 167 seq. 

Strife, among Christians, 234; warn- 
ed against, 242 seq. 

Subordination, of Christ, 
37 seq. 

Suffering, Fellowship in, 248 seq. 


9 seq., 


ube 

Titus, 57 seq. 

Treviri, The, 1. 

Truth, not hostile, 189 seq. 
U. 


Unity of God, The, 145 seq. 


Vie 
Zeal, impure, 190 seq. ; pure, 192. 





- 
i 
i 
ea 
P 
* 
. 
i 
ii 








‘ : Pi x 
, x . ; at 
' 
are i i ! ey raj's 
ety : 4 
Frisian 
i r } rs 
‘ i 
i Lira 
re ne 
e x 
ra f3 F,) as 
* u 
oy : y k 
5 aha) : . Site 
4 vin 
d ; i? 
¢ v4 
* 
4 , A Q 
4 Ny 
: — 
i i 
i. 
! 
y ~ 
K 
“th Wy 
. a rs 
‘ 
‘ a . 
; i . 
' i 
, ' y i Pt: 
ny j 
- r mpl es 
Runes ts 
i - 3 
\ 
\ 
; 
= i 
aa 
; 


TO THE 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 





BY 


HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
REV. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


WITH A PREFACE, TRANSLATION OF REFERENCES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY 
NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 


HENRY E. JACOBS, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE EVANGELICAL 
LUTHERAN CHURCH AT PHILADELPHIA, AND LATE PROFESSOR OF THE 
GREEK LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, PENNSYLVANIA 
COLLEGE, GETTYSBURG, PA, 


NEW YORK : 
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 


10 AND 12 Dry STREET. 


1884. 


ae y fk ie f 
BY ra oe ins i A 
ey ' , a 
Tn fi yy 
i) Pa! 
t - s Ay . me 4 the, , \ 
; wi : i ; ity. 
%& Pill a ' 7 
Z Yaa 
ae 
ar 
i 
4” ~ 
i 
~ 
i} 





Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, _ 


re - 


By FUNK & WAGNALLS, | = 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C 


- 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 


I nave at length the pleasure of issuing the last volume of the English 
translation of Dr. Meyer’s own part in the great work which bears his 
name, and of thereby completing an undertaking on which I have ex- 
pended no small amount of time and labor at intervals for the last eight 
years. I am aware that I have taxed considerably the patience of the 
subscribers and of the publishers, but I felt it due to them, as well as to 
Dr. Meyer, who had entrusted me with the charge of seeing his work 
faithfully reproduced, that the work should be done with care rather 
than with haste. 

The present volume has been translated with skill and judgment by 
Mr. Evans from the fourth edition of the German—the last form, in 
which this portion of the Commentary had the advantage of Meyer’s own 
revision. A fifth edition has since appeared (in 1878), under the charge 
of Professor Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in which he has treated the 
book in a way similar to that adopted by Dr. Weiss with the Commenta- 
ry on Mark and Luke, although not altering it to an equal extent. It is 
difficult to see why he should have followed such a course, for he him- 
self states that he ‘‘ has never been able to approve the custom of allow- 
ing other hands to remodel the works of the departed.’’ I have already 
expressed, in the prefatory note to the volume on Mark and Luke, the 
grounds on which I take exception to the plan so pursued, and I content 
myself with here referring to them as equally applicable in principle to 
the less important changes made by Dr. Schmidt. I find a striking cor- 
roboration of my remark as to the work manipulated by Dr. Weiss being 
“to a considerable extent a new book by another author, and from a 
standpoint in various respects different,’’ in the judgment pronounced 
by Dr. Schiirer, in a recent review (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 9th Octo- 
ber, 1880), on the same editor’s treatment of the Commentary on the 
Gospel of John, when, after mentioning various features of ‘‘ complete 
independence’’ and ‘‘ thorough remodelling,’’ he states that the result 
of the whole is ‘‘ an essentially new work.’’ Dr. Schiirer indicates ap- 
proval of the course pursued ; but it seems to me alike unfair to the 
memory of Meyer, and uncalled for under the circumstances. It is 


280 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 


quite open to an editor to write a book of his own on the subject, or to 
append as much as he deems necessary to his author’s text by way of ad- 
dition and correction ; but it is not open to him thus to recast an epoch- 
making work of exegesis, and to retain for its altered shape the sanction 
of the author’s name. At any rate, I have thought it right, so far as 
the English reader is concerned, to present, according to my promise, 
the work of Meyer, without addition or subtraction, in its latest and pre- 
sumably best form as it left his hands. 

I may add, that whatever care may have been bestowed on the revis- 
ion of the Commentary by Dr. Schmidt has not apparently extended to 
the correction of the press, for many errors, which have been discovered 
and corrected by Mr. Evans and myself in preparing the translation, still 
disfigure the new edition of the German. It is, of course, extremely 
difficult to avoid such errors in a work of the kind ; and I have no doubt 
that, notwithstanding the care of the printers, to whose excellent arrange- 
ments I am much indebted, the reader may light on not a few mistakes, 
as concerns references, accents, and the like ; but, as Dr. Meyer was 
not a particularly good corrector of the press, I trust that the English 
edition may be found in that respect fully more accurate than the orig- 
inal. 

In the Generai Preface prefixed to the first volume issued (Romans), 
I stated the grounds that had induced me to undertake the superintend- 
ence of the work, and the revision of the translation, in the interests of 
technical accuracy and of uniformity of rendering throughout. And in 
order that the subscribers may be assured that the promise therein im- 
plied has been fulfilled to the best of my ability, I think it right, in 
conclusion, to state for myself (and I believe that the same may be said 
for my friends Drs. Crombie and Stewart, who lent me their aid at a 
time when other work was pressing heavily upon me) that I have care- 
fully read and compared every sentence of the translation in the ten vol- 
umes which I edited—collating it for the most part in Ms., as well as 
subsequently on its passage through the press ; that I have not hesitated 
freely to make such changes on the work of the translators as seemed to 
me needful to meet the requirements which I had in view ; and that, 
under these circumstances, I alone am formally and finally responsible 
for the shape in which the Commentary appears. All concerned in the 
enterprise have much reason to be gratified by the favor with which it 
has been received. I have, indeed, seen some exception taken to the 
style, and to the frequent use of technical terms such as felic, protasis, 
and the like ; but our object was to translate the book into intelligible 
English, not to recast its literary form (which, as I have formerly ex- 
plained, has suffered from the mode in which the author inserted his 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, 281 


successive alterations and additions); and it is, from its very nature, 
destined mainly for ministers and students, who ought to be familiar 
with the import of those convenient technical terms. 

At the close of the article by Dr. Schiirer, of which I have spoken be- 
fore, he asks leave to repeat an urgent wish which he had some years 
ago expressed, that ‘‘there might be appended to the introduction of 
each volume of the German Commentary a list of the exegetical litera- 
ture.’’ He does not seem to be aware that in the English edition this 
want has been supplied with considerable fulness. I shall be glad to 
place the lists—all of which were prepared by me, except that prefixed 
to the Gospel of John, for which I am indebted to Dr. Crombie—at the 
service (a few errors apart) of any future editors of the original. 


WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 


Guascow CoLieGce, October, 1880. 


PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR. 


Since the year 1859, when the third edition of this Commentary was 
issued, there has appeared hardly any contribution of scientific impor- 
tance to the exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians. The Commen- 
tarius Criticus of the late Dr. Reiche contains, doubtless, many good 
exegetical remarks ; but they are subservient to his main aim, which is 
critical, and elucidate merely detached passages or expressions ; while 
the Lectures of Bleek are very far from having the importance which has 
been justly recognized as belonging to the previous series of Lectures by 
him on the Synoptic Gospels. 

But while thus, apart from various able discussions of particular pas- 
sages, I was less directly stimulated by new literary apparatus to subject 
my work to revision, the labor itself was not thereby rendered the lighter. 
The dies diem docet could not but, in the case of a task so moment- 
ous, have its title fully conceded ; and it will be found that I have 
sought to place much ona better and more complete footing, so as to do 
fuller justice to the great object of ascertaining thoroughly, clearly, and 
dispassionately the meaning of the Apostle’s discourse. By this I 
do not understand the discovery of those fanciful illusions [ Phantasma- 
gorieen| that people call profound. For the latter there is assuredly lit- 
tle need in the case of Paul, who, with the true penetration characteris- 
tic of his views and ways of unfolding them, knows how to wield his 
gifts of discourse so that his meaning shall be clear and palpable and 
apt; and least of all in the case of this very Epistle, where the Christo- 
logical teaching rises of itself to the utmost height and embraces heaven 
and earth. This distinctive character cannot be injured by the circum- 
stance that the apostolic writing, as a letter to the Hphesians,—such as, 
according to the critically-attested address, it is and will remain,—con- 
tinues to be, at all events, an enigmatical phenomenon, and its histori- 
cal conceivableness in so far an open question. Its elevation above the 
changes and controversies of Christological formulae and modes of con- 
ception cannot be thereby affected, and its prominent position in the 
New Testament as at once a testimony and a test of the truth cannot, 
amid any such change and strife, be prejudicially endangered. 

Hannover, 10/h Nov. 1866. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE 


TO THE 


EPHESIANS. 


[For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New Testa- 
ment, see the list prefixed to the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew ; for 
those which treat of the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see that 
which is prefixed to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The fol- 
lowing list includes only those expositions which relate to the Epistle to the 
Ephesians. Works mainly of a popularand practical character have, with a 
few exceptions, been excluded, as, however valuable they may be in them- 
selves, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the 
present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by 
Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest; al. appended 
denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued ; + marks 
the date of the author’s death ; c. = circa, an approximation to it.] 


[Barry, Alfred, Principal of King’s College, London, and Canon of West- 
minster: The Epistle to the Ephesians, with commentary (Handy 
Commentary Series), edited by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of 


Gloucester and Bristol). 16°, London, Paris and New York.] 
Bartus (Bartholomaeus), + 1637, Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Commentarius in 
Epistolam ad Ephesios. .. . 4°, Gryphisw. 1619. 


Baumearten (Sigmund Jakob), + 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle. See Ganarrans. 
BauMeGarten-Crusius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), + 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena: 


Commentar tiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. . . . Herausgege- 
ben yon Ernst Julius Kimmel... . 8°, Jena, 1847. 
Bayne (Paul), + 1617, Minister at Cambridge: An entire commentary upon the 
whole Epistle . . . to the Ephesians. . . . 2°, Lond. 1643. 


BuEeEx (Friedrich), ¢ 1859, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Vorlesungen iiber die Briefe 
an die Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser. . . . 8°, Berl. 1865. 

Boprus. See Boyp. 

Boyp (Robert) of Trochrig, + 1627, Principal at Glasgow and Edinburgh : in 
Epistolam ad Ephesios praelectiones supra cc. . . . 2°, Lond. 1652, al. 

Bravune (Karl), Superintendent in Altenburg: Die Briefe S. Pauli an die 
Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper, Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. 


[Lange’s Bibelwerk. ] 8°, Bielefeld, 1867. 
Translated from the German, with additions [Ephesians], by M. B. 
Riddle, D.D. 8°, New York, 1870. 


Bucer (Martin), + 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge : Praelectiones in Epistolam 
ad Kphesios habitae Cantabrigiae . . . in lucem editae diligentia Im. 
Tremellii. 2°, Basil. 1562. 


284 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 


CHANDLER (Samuel), D.D., + 1766, Presbyterian Minister in London, [See 
GALATIANS. | 

Cramer (Johann Andreas), + 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Neue Uebersetzung 

des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst einer Auslegung desselben. 

40, Hamb. 1782. 

Croctus (Johann), + 1659, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Commentarius in Epistolam 

ad Ephesios. 8°, Cassellis, 1642. 


Davies (John Llewelyn), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone. See Putp- 
PIANS and COLOSSIANS. 

Dinant (Petrus), + 1724, Minister at Rotterdam: De Brief aan die van Efeze 
verklaart en toegepast. 4°, Rotterd. 1711, al. 


Eapiz (John), D.D., + 1876, Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian 

Church: A commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle to the Ephe- 

sians. 8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1854. 

Exxzicorr (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A eritical 

and grammatical commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. 

8°, Lond. 1855, al. 

Esmanrcu (Heinrich Peter Christian), + 1831, Rector at Schleswig : Brief an die 

Epheser tibersetzt. 8°, Altona, 1785. 

Ewaxp (Georg Heinrich August), + 1876, Prof. Or. Lang. at Géttingen: Sieben 

Sendschreiben des Neuen Bundes uebersetzt und erklirt. [Send- 
schreiben an die Heidenchristen (die Epheser). ] 

8°, Gotting. 1870. 


Frreuson (James), + c. 1670, Minister of Kilwinning. See GALATIANS. 
Fuarr (Johann Friedrich von), + 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tibingen. See GanaTrans. 


GuvE (Gottlob Friedrich), + 1756, Pastor at Lauban : Grindliche Erliuterung 
des lehrreichen Briefes an die Epheser. 8°, Lauban, 1735. 


Hacenzacu (Karl Rudolph),} 1874, Prof. Theol. at Basel: Pauli Epistolam ad 
Philemonem interpretatus est C. R. Hagenbach. 4°, Basil. 1829. 
Haruess (Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von), + 1879, President of the Consistory at 
Miinich : Commentar tiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 
8°, Erlang. 1834, al. 
Heryricus (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf. See Koppzr 
(Johann Benjamin). 
Hopee (Charles), D.D., + 1878, Prof. Theol. at Princeton : A commentary on 
the Epistle to the Ephesians. 8°, New York, 1856, al. 
Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), + 1877, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : 
Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht. 
Theil iv. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser. iv. 2. Die Briefe an die 


Kolosser und an Philemon. 8°, Nérdlingen, 1870. 
Hortzmann (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. in Strassburg : Kritik der Epheser- 
und Kolosser-Briefe. . . 8°, Leip. 1872. 


HouzHAvseEN (Friedrich August) : Der Brief an die Epheser iibersetzt und erklart. 
8°, Hannov. 1833. 


KGHLER (C. N.): Auslegung der Epistel Pauli an die Epheser. 

8°, Kiel, 1854. 
Koprse (Johann Benjamin), + 1791, Superintendent at°Gotha: Novum Testa- 
mentum Graece perpetua annotatione illustratum. Voll. i.—iv. 8°, 
Gitting. 1778-83. [Vol. vi. Epp. ad Galatas, Ephesios, Thessaloni- 
censes. Editio tertia emendata et aucta. Curavit H. Chr. Tychsen. 
Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), + 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna: Der 

Brief an die Epheser iibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet. 
8°, Frankf. a. M. 1789. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 285 


Lacus (Daniel), + 1678, Prof. Math. at Greifswald : Commentatio quadripartita 


super Epistolam ad Ephesios. 4°, Gryphisw. 1664. 
Licutroor (Joseph Barber), D.D., Bishop of Durham. See Puinipprans and Co- 
lossians. 


Locks (John), + 1704. See GALATIANS. ; 
Luruer (Martin), + 1546, Reformer: Die Epistel an die Epheser ausgelegt, aus 
seinen Schriften herausgegeben von Chr. G. Eberle. 8°, Stuttg. 1878. 


Masor [Mayer] (Georg), + 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Enarratio Episto- 


lae Paulii scriptae ad Ephesios. 8°, Vitemb, 1552. 
Marrutes (Conrad Stephan), Prof. Theol, at Greifswald : Erklarung des Briefes 
Pauli an die Epheser. .. . 8°, Greifsw. 1834. 
Meter (Friedrich Karl), + 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Commentar iiber den 
Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Berl. 1834. 
Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig. See 
GALATIANS. 


Mouscuuus [Mevussiin] (Wolfgang), + 1573, Prof. Theol. at Berne. See GaLaTrans. 


Passavant (Theophilus) : Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung des Briefes 


Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Basel, 1836. 
Porp (G. C.) : Uebersetzung und Erklarung der drei ersten Kapitel des Briefs 
an die Epheser, nebst einer kurzen Hinleitung.... 4°, Rostock, 1799. 


Roreitt (Herman Alexander), + 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Commentarius 


in principium Epistolae ad Ephesios. 4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1715. 
Et commentarii . . . pars altera, cum brevi Epistolae ad Colossenses 
exegesi. Ed. Dion. And. Roell. 40, Traj. ad Rhen. 1731. 
Roxttock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh : In Epis- 
tolam Pauli ad Ephesios commentarius. 40, Edin. 1590, al. 
Royaarps (Albertus): . .. Paullus’ Brief aan de Ephesers schriftmatig ver- 
klaart. 3 deelen. 4°, Amsterd. 1735-38. 
Riickert (Leopold Immanuel), + c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Der Brief Pauli 
an die Epheser erlautert und vertheidigt. 8°, Leip. 1834. 


ScHENKEL (Daniel), Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Die Briefe an die Epheser, 
Philipper, Colosser. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [Lange’s 


Bibelwerk, IX. ] 8°, Bielefeld, 1862. 
Scamp (Sebastian), + 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Paraphrasis super 
Epistolam ad Ephesios. 40, Strassb. 1684, al. 


ScHNAPPINGER (Bonifacius Martin Wunibald), + c. 1825, Prof. at Heidelberg : 

Brief an die Epheser erklirt und erliutert von Bonifaz yom heil. Wun- 

ibald. 40, Heidelb. 1793. 

Scutirze (Theodor Johann Abraham), + 1830, Director of the Gymnasium at 
Gera : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios. 

8°, Leip. 1778. 

SpreneR (Philip Jakob), + 1705, Consistorial-Rath at Berlin: Erklarung der 


Episteln an die Epheser und Colosser, . . . 4°, Halae, 1706, al. 
Srrvart (Peter), + 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt : Commentarius in Episto- 
lam ad Ephesios. 49 Ingolstad. 1593. 


Stier (Rudolph Ewald), + 1862, Superintendent in Hisleben : Die Gemeinde in 
Christo, Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser. 8°, Berl. 1848-49. 


Tr (Salomon von), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden. See Romans. 

Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., + 1861, Prof. of Bibl. Interpretation at 
New York : The Epistle to the Ephesians in Greek and English, with 
an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1856. 

TycusEn (Thomas Christian), + 1834. See Korrz (Johann Benjamin). 


286 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 


Varasuus [VASTEBLED] (Francois), + 1547, Prof. Heb. at Paris : Annotationes in 
Novum Testamentum. [Critici Sacri. ] 


Weiter (Hieronymus), + 1572, Superintendent at Freiberg: Commentarius 
in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios. 8°, Noriberg, 1559. 
Wiesincer (J. C. August). See PHinIpPprans. 


ZacHanrray (Gotthilf Traugott), + 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel. See Ganatrans. 
Zancuius (Hieronymus), + 1590, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Commentarius in 
Epistolam ad Ephesios. 2°, Neostadii, 1594. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


SEC. 1.—READERS TO WHOM THE EPISTLE IS ADDRESSED. 


commerce, arts, and sciences, and the seat of the world-renowned 
worship of Artemis,—which, formerly one of the principal settle- 
ments of the Ionian population, has, since its destruction by the 
Goths, had its site marked only by gloomy ruins, and now by the 
small village of Ajasaluk, or, according to Fellows, Asalook,’— Paul 
planted Christianity (Acts xviii. 19, xix. 1, etc.) ; and his successful labors 
there, during a period of nearly three years, placed him in the close confi- 
dential relations to the church, of which his touching farewell to the elders 
(Acts xx. 17 ff.) is an imperishable memorial. The church was in its founda- 
tion a mixed one, composed of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts xix. 
1-10, xx. 21) ; but at the later date, when our Epistle was composed, the 
Gentile-Christian element, which already appears from Acts xix. 26 exten- 
sively diffused, so greatly preponderated, that Paul could address the 
church @ potiori as a Gentile-Christian one ; see i. 12f., ii. 1 ff., 11, 19, iv. 
17, iii. 1. Hence it must not be inferred from this, that the Epistle could 
not have been addressed to the Ephesian church.? 

Our Epistle is expressly addressed, in i. 1, to the Christians at Ephesus.* 
For the words év ’E¢éow are so decisively attested, that they cannot be de- 
prived of their right toa place in the text, either by isolated counter- 
witnesses, or by the internal grounds of doubt as to the Ephesian destina- 
tion of the Epistle. Among the manuscripts, % has év ’E¢éom only from the 
hand of a later corrector ; B has the words only in the margin, and (not- 
withstanding Hug, de antig. Cod. Vat. p. 26) not from the first hand ; * 





1 See, generally, Creuzer, Symbol. II. p. ete., 1842; Anger, wiber d. Laodicenerbrief 
113 ff.; Pococke, Morgenl. III. p. 66 ff.; von (Beitr. z. Hinl. in’s N. T.1I.), 1843. Reiche, 
Schubert, Reise in das Morgen. I. p. 284 ff. ; in his Comment. crit. in N. T. II. 1859, has 
Guhl, Zphesiaca, Berol. 1842; Fellows, the most fully and thoroughly controverted 
Journal written during an Excursion in Asia the view of the Epistle being destined for 
Minor, London, 1838, p. 274 f. [See also Ephesus, and the genuineness of the words 
Discoveries at Ephesus, by J.T. Wood, who ev “Epéow. Comp. also Weiss in Herzog’s 
discovered the site of the Temple of Arte- Hncyki. XIX. s.v. ‘‘ Epheserbrief.”’ 
mis in 1869.—Ed. | 4See Tischendorf in the allg. K.-Zeit. 

2 Reiche, Bleek, and others. 1843, No. 116, and in the Stud. wnd rit. 

3 See Liinemann, de ep. ad Eph. authentid, —_ 1847, p. 133. 


288 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

while in the Cod. 67, proceeding from the twelfth century,’ it was placed 
certainly in the text by the first hand, but was deleted by a second hand 
(which betrays generally an affinity with B). The evidence of the versions 
is unanimous for év ‘E¢éow ; but in the Fathers we find undeniable indica- 
tions that the omission in B s*, and the deletion in Cod. 67, are founded 
upon older codices, and have arisen out of critical grounds. For Basil the 
Great, contra Hunom. ii. 19,° says : roic "Edecioue éxiotéAAwv ¢ yvyciog jvopé- 
voe T@ bvtt, ‘* writing to the Ephesians as being united truly by knowledge 
to Him who is” (that is, to Him who is existent, in the absolute sense) dv 
émiyvocewc, bvTag avtove idialdévTwe @vouacev eimav’ TOt¢G dylioLtg TOlg OvGaLD 
kal meotoicg Ev Xptots *Inoov. Otto yap kai of xpd yudv Tapadeddxact, 
Kal jpeic év Toi¢ TaAaiowe TOV avttypadav ebphKauev, ‘he calls them in a special 
sense those who are, saying, To the saints roi¢ otce and the faithful in 
Christ Jesus. For thus those before us have transmitted it, and we have 
found it in the ancient copies.” From this passage it is clear that Basil 
considered it indeed certain that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians, 
but looked upon the words év ’Edésw as non-genuine, to which conclusion 
he had been led not merely by way of tradition, but also through the old 
Mss. existing in his time, which he had himself looked into, and which had 
not éy ’Edéow.* It has, however, been incorrectly asserted that Jerome also 
did not find év ’Edéow in Mss., but knew it merely as a conjecture.* He 
says, namely, oni. 1 :° Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est, putant ex e0, quod 
Moysi dictum sit, ‘‘Some, with an excessive refinement, think from what 
was said to Moses” [Ex. ili. 14] : haec dices jiliis Israel: qui est misit me, 


etiam 0s, qui Hphesi sunt sancti et fidelis, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos.* .. . 


1 According to others, including Reiche 
(Comm. crit. p. 102), even from the ninth or 
tenth century; but not from the year 1331, 
as Credner, Hinl. I. 2, p. 397, states. This 
year belongs to the Codex 67, which con- 
tains the Acts and Catholic Epistles. See 
Griesbach, II. p. xv. ; Scholz, II. p. x. 

2 Opp. ed. Garnier, I. p. 254. 

3 We must candidly recognize this as the 
result of the words of Basil. It is a parti- 
san and mistaken view to assert that, in 
making the above quotation of the address 
of our Epistle, he had not included év 
°Efdéeow, because he had previously said rots 
*Edectous emiatéAAwy, and that his appeal to 
tradition and the old mss. applied only to the 
article tots before ovevy (l’Enfant, Wolf), or 
to otow (Wiggers in the Stud. wv. krit. 1841, 
p. 423 f.). In opposition to l’Enfant, it may 
be urged that Basil must necessarily have 
written tovs ovras previously, because 
the genuineness and the stress of the article 
(which is still wanting in Cod. 46) would 
have been in question; in opposition to 
Wiggers, that not the slightest critical trace 
of a previous omission of otcvy is to be found; 
while, against both, we may urge the deci- 
sive consideration, that it is in the highest 


degree arbitrary to assume that in the case 
of averbal critical citation, such as Basil 
here gives with so earnest and emphatic a 
statement of his reason for doing so (oUt 
yapx.7.A.), words were passed over, because 
they would be obvious of themselves, and 
words, too, which were so far from being un- 
important, that in fact it was only their ab- 
sence that could warrant the metaphysical 
explanation of rots otow, and did beyond 
doubt give rise to it. And if Basil were 
concerned only with rots or ovow, why, 
then, has he not merely cited the passage 
as far as ovov, but also added the kai moots 
ev X.1., so unimportant for that metaphys- 
ical conception of tots cdovv, and—strangest 
of all—omitted just the év ’"Epéow which 
stood between? An inconceivable parsi- 
mony! No; no reader could understand 
the ovrw yap «.7.A. otherwise than of the 
form of address just diterally cited in the 
TOls aylols Tots OVELY Kat TLCTOLS ev X.,’1., from 
which the recension which was then current 
differed, in that it contained év "Ed¢éeow. 

4 Bottger, Beitr. 3, p. 37; Olshausen. 

5 Opp. ed. Vallars. VII. p. 545. 

6 Probably (see the scholion from Origen 
in Tischendorf) this explanation proceeded 


INTRODUCTION. 289 
Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos, qui sint, sed qui Ephesi sancti et jfideles sint, 
seriptam arbitrantur, ‘‘ These words shalt thou say to the children of Israel, 
He who is hath sent me, that the saints and faithful at Ephesus are ad- 
dressed by a term descriptive of essence. Others, indeed, suppose that the 
epistle was written not simply to those who are, but to those who are at 
Ephesus, saints and faithful.” But this ‘‘seriptam arbitrantur,” ‘ they 
thought it written,” does not refer to the fact that these ‘‘ alii,” ‘‘ others,” 
had thought that the readers of the Epistle were the Ephesians ; to Jerome, 
on the contrary, év ’E¢éow is quite an undoubted part of the text (sanctis 
omnibus, qui sunt Ephesi, ‘‘to all saints who are at Ephesus,” is his reading), 
and he only adduces two different explanations of roic oiow, by which, 
however, év ’Edéow is not affected. According to the one interpretation, 
the Christians at Ephesus were designated as existing in the metaphysical 
sense ; according to the other, roi¢ oto was taken in the usual simple 
sense of eivaz, and consequently the Epistle was regarded as directed not to 
the evistent Ephesian Christians, but to the Christians who were to be found 
at Ephesus. ‘Thus Jerome has not mentioned the omission of év ’Edéow, and 
therefore probably was not aware that the opinion of those ‘‘ quidam” had 
originated from the very reading without év ’Edéow ; on which account he 
looked upon this opinion as a curiosity. Hence he furnishes, almost con- 
temporaneously with Basil, an important counterpoise to his testimony. 
But if Basil in his time stands alone, he has a precursor, whose testimony 
points back to a considerably greater antiquity, in Tertullian, who says, 
contra Mare. v.11: ‘‘Praetereo hic et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios 
praescriptam | habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos, ‘‘ 1 pass by here another 
epistle, which we have, addressed to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the 
Laodiceans ;” and at ver. 17: ‘‘ Heclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad 
Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando 
interpolare gestiit, ‘‘According to the true testimony of the church, we hold 
this epistle to have been sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans, But 
Marcion had sometimes a strong desire to interpolate the title” (¢.e., to make 
it otherwise, alter it), quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator ; nihil autem 
de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam, ‘‘as if 
in that he had been a very diligent inquirer ; but the question of the title 
is of no account, since the apostle wrote to all, when he wrote to some.” Ac- 
cording to this, in Tertullian’s time the Epistle was acknowledged by the 
orthodox church, and by Tertullian himself,* as an Epistle to the Ephesians, 


from Origen, since it looks quite like him, 
and he wrote a commentary on the Epistle, 


to the address and salutation, which are, in 
fact, an integral part of the epistolary text 


which was used by Jerome. 

1 That is, swperscribed. Comp. for example, 
Geliius, v. 21, ‘“‘epistola . . . cui titulus prae- 
scriptus est,” ‘‘ the epistle to which the title 
is prefixed.” The words ‘‘ ad Ephesios,” “to 
the Ephesians,” and ‘‘ ad Laodicenos,” ‘‘to 
the Laodiceans,”’ are the “ ipsissima verba,”’ 
“very words,” of the prefixed ¢itulus prae- 
scriptus. Hence titulus, “ title,’ and prae- 
scrivere, ‘‘ prefixed,” are not to be referred 


19 


itself (against Harless, Limemann, and 
others, and Laurent in the Jahrb. fiir 
Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 131). See also Reiche, 
Comment. crit. p. 109. The reading perscrip- 
tam in the above passage of Tertullian has 
evidently arisen from praescriptam (which 
is contained in the editions of Pamela 
and Rigaltius) not having been understood. 

2Comp. cont. Mare. iv. 5, de praescrip. 
haer. 36. 


290 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


and only heretics like Marcion regarded it as addressed to the Laodiceans ; 
but Tertullian cannot have read or known of év’Egéow, i. 1, because other- 
wise he would not have spoken merely of a change in the superseription,’ and 
would not have appealed to the ‘‘ veritas ecelesiae,” ‘‘truth of the church,” 
but to the tert. It has been objected, indeed (see especially, Harless and 
Wiggers, and compare also Liinemann), that this is an inference from the 
critical standpoint of owr time, and that it would have been quite natural 
in Tertullian summarily to bring in the ‘‘ veritas ecclesiae,” ‘“‘truth of the 
church.” But this would only have been natural for him in the event of the 
question relating to a falsification of the text by Marcion. The question 
here concerns a falsification of the title, which, if the words év ’Eg¢éow had 
stood in the text, would have been at variance with the text ; and what 
would have been in that case more natural than to appeal tothe apostolic ép 
’Edéow ? ~The invocation of the ‘‘ veritas ecclesiae” serves precisely to prove 
that an apostolic év ’Edéow was not known to Tertullian. This at the same 
time applies in opposition to the remark of Wiggers, I. 1, p. 429, that 
Marcion could not have read anything else than év ’E¢éo in the address, if 
he had discovered anything to be changed in the superscription, which was 
naturally (?) of the same tenor (7 mpd¢ ’E@eciovg éxiotoAy). No, he not merely 
may, but must have read in the address nothing at all of the place for which 
the Epistle was destined ; otherwise he must have falsified the address also, 
and not merely the traditional swperseription—which is not to be assumed, 
since Tertullian brings a charge against him merely as concerns the titulus, 
‘* title,” and, on his own part, betrays no knowledge whatever of an- 
iv ’Ed¢éow in the address. How, then, could Tertullian dismiss the falsifica- 
tion of Marcion with the evasive nihil autem de titulis interest cum ad omnes, 
‘*the question of titles is of no account,” etc., if he had before him in 
the apostolic text év ’Edéow, before which the title pic Aaod:xéacg would at 
ence have broken down? Little as it fell in with Tertullian’s purpose to 
assail Marcion at length on account of his falsification of the title, since he 
was occupied in confuting his dogmatic errors, surely it would have re- 
quired no more words to dispose of the falsifier of the title by an appeal to 
the text, than to get rid of the matter with the superficial nihil autem de 
titulis, ete. And how could Marcion himself (evidently on the ground of 
Col, iv. 16) have hit upon the idea of changing the title of the Epistle, if 
he himself had read év ’Hdéow in i. 1? Dogmatic reasons, which at other 
times determined the heretic in his critical proceedings, did not exist here 
at all. If, in accordance with all this, the testimony of Tertullian, as well 
as the procedure of Marcion, to which he bears witness, is adverse to the év 
"Edéow 3 that, on the other hand, of Ignatius, ad Hph. 12, is not to be used 
either for or against, whether we look at his words in the shorter or the 
longer recension. ? 


1 Praescriptam, titulum; comp. on this TavToTe €v Tats Senoecty avTov hYN- 


last, de pudic. 29, al. provevec vuov (yulg. near), “ye are 
2 According to the longer recension (in initiated into the mysteries of the gospel 
Dressel, p. 832): “Yuets 6 IavAov ouupvo- with Paul the holy, the martyred, who is 


Tat €oTé HylagwEevov, pcmapTupnuevov...o0s always mindful of you (vulg. of us) in his 


INTRODUCTION. 291 


But although, when the matter is thus cleared up, Basil on the ground of 
older mss. rejected év ’Edéow, and Marcion and Tertullian did not read the 
words, they are yet to be most decidedly retained as original, for the follow- 
ing external and internal reasons (in addition to the attestation, upon which 
we have already remarked, of all other still extant witnesses, and especially 
of the versions) :—(1) The entire ancient church has designated our Epistle 
expressly as Epistle to the Ephesians (Irenaeus, Haer. v. 2, 3 ; Clemens Alex. 
Strom. iv. 8, p. 592, ed. Potter ; Tertullian, Origen, and others, even as 
early as the Canon Murat., and Valentinus in the Philosoph. Or. vi. 84) with- 
out even a single voice, with the exception of Marcion’s, being raised against 
this view. But if the words év ’E¢éom bad been wanting from the outset, and 
the Epistle had thus borne on the face of it no place of destination, such a 
consensus would have been quite as inexplicable in itself as at variance with 
the analogy of the other Epistles, in which throughout the judgment of the 
church as to the first readers coincides with the superscription, where there 
is one, and beyond doubt depends upon it. (2) In all his Epistles Paul 
designates in the address the recipients most definitely, even when he does 
not write to the Christians of a single town (1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 1), or to 
a single church (Gal. i. 2). Accordingly, our Epistle, if fairly regarded in 
accordance with the address, should év ’Eg¢éow not be genuine, would be 
marked out as a catholic one, without any limitation whatever of locality or 
nationality of the readers,—a view with which the contents (i. 15, ii. 11, 
iii. 1, iv. 17, etc.) as well as the mission of Tychicus (vi. 21) would be de- 
cidedly at variance. (8) On each occasion, when St. Paul in the address has 
used roic¢ otc, it serves to specify the locality of the readers. See Rom. i. 
7: tolc ovow év ‘Pouy ; Phil. 1. 1: roic ovow év OcAimmore 3 1 Cor. i. 2: 
év Kopivm, and even so 2 Cor. i. 1. Compare the addresses in the Ignatian 
Epistles. (4) If Paul had written roi¢ dyioue toic obow Kai mioroic, We should 
have a form of address, which does not even admit of any tolerable expla- 
nation. It would yield the meaning : to the saints, who are also (not merely 
saints, but also) believing." But what a flat and inappropriate severance of 
the ideas ‘‘ saints and believing,” which should rather be conjoined into unity 
(comp, Col. i. 2)! With the apostle there are no saints, who are not also 


TH OvOX 


prayers.” Following the reading yar, makes mention of you in his whole letter! 


Credner here concludes that our Epistle 
was not directed to the Ephesians alone. 
But it would apply to ‘ the Pauline Chris- 
tians in general,” so that it would not at 
all contain a reference to the individual 
Epistle. According to the shorter recen- 
sion, the passage runs thus: IlavAov x.7.A., 
Os €v Taon EmLOTOAH MYUNMOVEVEL 
vpa@v, “of Paul, who in every epistle ad- 
monishes you.”’ Here év ragy emcatoAy does 
not mean, in the whole Epistle,—a linguis- 
tically erroneous interpretation which, 
though still defended by Harless and re- 
peated by Dressel, would yield a quite irrel- 
evant meaning ; for how strange to say to 
A, who has received a letter from B: B 


This is surely obvious of itself, and is not 
at all a point appropriate to be dwelt upon! 
On the contrary, é€v macy émictoAy Means: 
in every Epistle; so that Ignatius does not 
mean our Epistle alone, nor yet by vpeav 
specially the Ephesians as such, but the 
Ephesians as Pauline Christians generally 
(as regards category), and hence could say : 
he makes mention of you in every Epistle. 
It is not difficult to see how, in the words 
under consideration, the longer recension 
is related as explanatory to the shorter. 

1 Tt is not necessary that in this case otouv 
should stand after morots. Comp. Johni. 
49, iv. 9; Acts vii. 2; Eph. ii. 1, etc. 


292 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

believers. The explanation of Meier is chargeable with the same inappro- 
priateness : to the saints, who are also faithful (since the unfaithful have 
ceased to be saints) ; and, moreover, it is to be taken into consideration 
that ricroic is not defined to have the sense of faithful by the context, but 
rather, when used in the address, and connected with év X. ’I., most natu- 
rally presents the sense of believing, as in Col. i. 2.1 Credner, Hinl. I. 2, 
p. 400, translates : to the saints, who are in fact also believers, and this is held to 
mean : to the saints, who are true believers ; in the mouth of Paul equiva- 
lent to Pauline Christians. But, in this case, roic obo could not, without 
risk of being misapprehended, dispense with a defining addition (in fact), 
or Paul at least must have written roi¢ Kai obow rioroic, in which case by 
means of «ai the special emphasis of oto might be indicated (who are not 
merely called believers, but aiso are so). Yet even thus the expression 
would not be clear, and the meaning : to the Pauline Christians, would be 
purely imported. In a context, where Pauline and anti-Pauline Christians 
were spoken of, the reader might without further indication understand 
under true believers the former ; but not in the address, where this ref- 
erence is not suggested by anything, and the less so, seeing that this con- 
trast does not come once under discussion in the Epistle itself. Schneck- 
enburger and Matthies attach toic¢ otc to roi dyiowc. The latter? explains: 
toi¢ ovowv, who are there (namely, in Asia Minor, whither Tychicus was jour- 
neying to visit them), which imputes to Paul a strange clumsiness. But 
Schneckenburger ? renders : to the saints, who are in fact such. But even thus 
Paul, in order to obviate misunderstanding (and in the address of an official 
writing at any rate people express themselves definitely and clearly), could 
not have dispensed with some defining adjunct (77 fact) to roic obow 3 and, 
even apart from this, how unsuitable would the address be, whether we ex- 
plain the true saints as standing in contrast to the nominal Christians or to 
the Jews! The former would yield an indefinite designation of the readers, 
and would contain an exclusion and separation unsuited to the apostolic 
spirit and working. And the latter would be quite out of place, since the 
Epistle has nothing at all to do with the contrast to Judaism. All expla- 
nations without év’Edéow are fanciful impossibilities, unless we keep to the 
first-given simple translation of the words. Weiss does this in Herzog’s 
Encykl. X1X. p. 480 ; rejecting év ’E¢éow, he makes the saints, who are believers 
also on Christ,* to be said of the New Testament saints in contrast with those 
of the Old Testament. But this contrast would itself be quite without any 
motive in the contents of the Epistle ; indeed, in the xai (a/so) there would be 
implied a side-glance at the unconverted Jews, which would be out of place 
and unsuitable. 


1 This also holds in opposition to Bott- 
ger’s views, Beitrdge, 3, p. 29 ff.: to the 
saints, who there ave also faithful, in which 
the otow presents a contrast to the apostate 
Jewish-Christians, who had been faithful. 
Such a contrast would necessarily, from 
the very nature of the case, have been 
spoken of in the Epistle itself—We may 


add that already the Gothic version has 
translated motots, faithful (“ triggnaim”’). 

2 Comp. Bengel. 

3 Beitrage, p. 133. 

4 So in substance also Reiche, Comm. crit. 
p. 122: ‘‘ sanctis, tisdemque fidemin Christum 
profitentibus,” ‘‘to the saints, and the same 
professing faith in Christ.” 


INTRODUCTION. 293 

Tn view of all that has been said, we must defend év ’Edéow, 1. 1, as decid- 
edly genuine. But wherefore was it omitted at so early a period’ in a por- 
tion of the codices? Certainly this omission was not a mere transcriber’s 
error ;* for not only is such an error in itself improbable at the very main 
point of the address, but it would not have obtained any considerable diffu- 
sion. Further, the possible reason, which may account at Rom. i. 7 forthe 
absence of év ‘Péu7y in various Mss., namely, through a transcript of the Epis- 
tle for public reading in another particular church, is here at any rate im- 
probable, since the manuscripts not containing év’E¢éow must have been cir- 
‘culated in very different regions (Asia and Africa) and in very considerable 
number. This latter fact might point to the hypothesis that, by omitting 
év Egéow, it was sought to give to an Epistle so general in tenor and weigh- 
ty, the impress of a Catholic one.* But, in point of fact, the apostolic Epis- 
tles directed ad quosdam, ‘‘ to some,” were already of themselves regarded 
as written ad omnes, ‘‘ to all,” 4 and hence there was no need of the proced- 
ure indicated. Equally inadmissible, moreover, is the view (see below), 
that from the very first in a portion of the manuscripts the place for the 
local name was left vacant, and thereby év ’Edéow was omitted.® Nor yet 
can we accept the dogmatic reason, that the name of the place was expunged 
with a view to favor the metaphysical explanation of roi¢ oiaw, specified in 
Basil and Jerome, since the converse alone is natural, namely, that the met- 
aphysical interpretation of roic oiow arose from the fact of the text being al- 
ready deprived of the év ’Edécw, 

The omission would rather appear due to ancient historical criticism. 
From the contents of the letter at a very early period the inference had been 
drawn, that it was addressed to persons who were as yet personally unknown 
to the apostle, and still novices in Christianity.° And how naturally did 
this lead to the view that the Ephesians had not been the recipients, and so 
to the striking out of év’Egéow ! The text written without év’Egéow was 
soon laid hold of to support the metaphysical explanation of rote oiowv, which 
had arisen out of it ; and the favor and diffusion which the latter received 


1Marcion, Tertullian, the old mss. in ten this Epistle to them ;’’ and also in Eutha- 


Basil. 

2 Liinemann. 

3 Comp. Wieseler, 
Zeitalt. p. 438. 

4 Jerome, c. Mare. v. 1%. 

5 Schott, Zsag. p. 279, suggests that per- 
haps Paul himself had commissioned ‘ly- 
chicus to have copies for other churches 
made at Ephesus, and to have the names 
of these other churches inserted therein in 
place of the €vy E¢eow, which came from 
himself; and that a copyist had left a blank 
for the future insertion of the name, which 
he had forgotten thereafter to fill up. 

® Historical traces of this ancient view 
are to be found in Theodoret, Praef.,andon 
i. 15, who relates ‘‘ that some had asserted 
that Paul pydérw tois “Edecious teOeapevor, 
“never having seen the Ephesians,’ had writ- 


Chronol. des apost. 


lius (@p. Zaceagni in Collect. mon. vet. ecel. 
p. 524) : n mpos “Efecious.. . is ev TH Tpoypahy 
TO pvaTYpLov exTiveTat, TapamAnciws TH Tmpos 
“Pwpatous: audorepors be e& akons yvwpijmots, Kat 
€loly avTat Tpos aVTLOLATTOAHY apxal KaTHXOUME- 
vw kal TLsT@Y Eioaywyat, ‘the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, in whose introduction the mys- 
tery is presented, just as in that to the Ro- 
mans: to both known by hearing, and 
they are in distinction elements for cate- 
chumens and introductions for believers.” 
Comp. also the Synops. script. sacr. in Atha- 
nasius, Opp. III. p. 194, ed. Bend.: tavtnv emo- 
Te\Aer aro ‘Pans, ovTw MEV a’TOUS EwpaKws, 
akovaas S€ povov wept avtav (Tay “Edectwv), 
““ Tle writes this from Rome, not as yet hay- 
ing seen them, but only having heard of 
them ”’ (é.e., of the Ephesians). 


294 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

from its accordance with the taste of the age necessarily contributed to the 
spread of the text which was denuded of the év’E¢éom. The omission of 
these words, thus originated and diffused, could not indeed do away with 
the correct ecclesiastical tradition of the Epistle being destined for Ephesus, 
or frustrate the preservation of év ’Egéom and the triumph of that original 
reading (supported as it was by all the versions), which had been already 
achieved by the time of Jerome; but it did make it possible for Marcion, 
seeing that he already found év ’Egéow no longer in the text, to alter, in 
opposition to tradition, the title zpd¢ ’Egeoiovg into rpd¢ Aaodixéac, regarding 
the Epistle on the basis of Col. iv. 16 as addressed to the Laodiceans—in the 
service of the same criticism, under which, only handled in a negative sense, 
év ’Egéow had disappeared. 

But, it is said, the contents—quite general in tenor, without personal 
reminiscences and references, without salutations (not even Timotheus and 
Aristarchus are mentioned, as in Col. i. 1, iv. 10 ; Philem. 24), without any 
trace of that close intimacy in which Paul had stood to his Ephesian con- 
verts, as a father to his children '—are of such a character that the Epistle 
of itself betrays that it was not directed to the Ephesians ; and the passages, 
i. 15, ili. 1-4, iv. 21, point to readers who had not been in any personal con- 
nection with the apostle. Mainly based on this internal character of the 
Epistle, we find two hypotheses concerning the readers for whom it was 
destined :—I. Following Marcion, Grotius, Hammond, Mill, Pierce, du Pin, 
Wall, the younger Vitringa, Venema, Wetstein, Paley, e¢ a/., including, re- 
cently, Holzhausen and others (see on Col. iv. 16), as well as Ribiger,’ have 
supposed 3 that the Epistle was addressed to the Laodiceans, as being person- 
ally unknown to the apostle (Col. ii. 1). While this hypothesis * falls of 
itself, if the genuineness of év ’Edécw is established, it may, moreover, be 
urged in opposition to it—(a) that from Marcion’s procedure we may not in- 
fer an Asiatic tradition. For the ecclesiastical tradition is quite unani- 
mous in regarding the Ephesians as readers of the Epistle; there is no 
trace of deviation ; the heretic stands alone with his adherents, without 
any anticipation or echo of his critical paradox. (6) Since, according to 
Col. iv. 16, the Epistle to the Laodiceans had at the very first become 
known in two different churches,—in Laodicea and Colossae,—and 
without doubt was disseminated from both by copies, it is the more 
incomprehensible how the Ephesians could appropriate to themselves 


1 Jt is arbitrary and contrary to the man- 
ner of the apostle to assume, with Wurm 
(in the Zvib. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 98), that 
Paul, because of painful experiences which 
he had had in Ephesus, avoided mention of 
previous occurrences. How altogether dif- 
ferent is his procedure, especially in the 
Epistle to the Galatians ! 

2 Christologia Paul. p. 48. 

3 See, in opposition to this assumption, 
also Satori, wiber ad. Laodicenerbrief, Liibeck, 
1853, and especially Reiche, p. 131 sqq. 
Reiche, however, considers our Epistle as 


identical with that mentioned in Col. iv. 16 ; 
in his view it was destined not merely for 
the Laodiceans, but also for Hierapolis and 
other churches of that region, and thence had 
no place specified in the opening address ; 
but Paul had orally imparted to Tychicus 
more particular directions as to that point. 
See, in opposition to the alleged encyclical 
destination of the Epistle, generally what is 
said below under II. The view of Weiss is 
essentially similar to that of Reiche. 
4 To which Baur, p. 457, is also inclined. 


INTRODUCTION. 295 
the Laodicean letter, and how universal ecclesiastical tradition could 
support this view without meeting with opposition in the church itself. 
The appeal to the earthquake, which, according to Tacitus, Ann. xiv. 27, 
in the year 60* destroyed Laodicea,’ yields no result, since, according to 
Tacitus, U.c., Laodicea was soon restored ; and the Christian church there 
cannot have perished (Rev. iii.), still less the knowledge of the Epistle 
which Paul had written to them. No doubt, in view of Col. iv. 16, there 
must have been an affinity of contents between the Epistle to the Laodiceans 
and that to the Colossians, which seems to tell in favor of the identity of 
our Epistle with the former ; but may not Paul, besides our Epistle and that 
to the Colossians, have written a third kindred in its contents ? which has 
perished, like a letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9), one to the Philip- 
pians (see on Phil. iii. 1, Remark), and perhaps also others, which have left 
no traces behind. (c) If our Epistle is the Epistle to the Laodiceans, it must 
have been written before the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. iv. 16), which, 
according to § 2, is not to be assumed. Indeed, at Eph. vi. 21 and Col. iv. 
7, there might possibly be not even meant one and the same journey of 
Tychicus (which yet forces itself on us so undeniably in pursuance of the 
words and the geographical relations), seeing that Paul, in the Epistle to the 
Colossians (iv. 15), directs the Laodiceans, and an individual among them, 
to be saluted,—which, from the nature of the case, he would hardly have done, 
if he had been sending to them at the same time a etter, and that by so 
trusted a fellow-laborer,* who, besides, had to travel by way of Laodicea to 
Colossae (see on Col. iv. 16, Remark). (d) What Holzhausen says of Col. 
ii. 2, that it was written with a consciousness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
is purely imaginary. Following Beza,* and Ussher,® Garnier,’ Bengel, 
Benson, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Ziegler,* Justi,® Stolz, Haenlein, 


1 According to Eusebius, Chron., and Oro- 
sius, Hist. vii. 7, only at a later date ; see 
Wieseler, p. 455. 

2 According to Eusebius and Orosius, 
Colossae and Hierapolis also. 

3 This enigma would only admit of solu- 
tion from the domain of conjecture. The 
easiest thing would be to say, that Paul, 
when he had the Epistle to the Colossians 
with his salutation to the Laodiceans al- 
ready completed, had only then resolved to 
send further with Tychicus «@ detier to the 
Laodiceans, in drawing up which he was 
aware that Tychicus would reach Laodicea 
before Colossae. But with all hypotheses, 
which are not made in the consistent fol- 
lowing out of an ascertained fact, the 
ground falls away under our feet. Others 
have asserted that Paul wished to repeat 
the salutations, or that he had only, as he 
was writing to the Colossians, heard about 
Nymphas through Epaphras; but these, 
after all, are nothing but suppositions, 
which, moreover, are invalidated by the 


fact that our Epistle is to be placed «after 
that to the Colossians (see § 2). Bertholdt 
considers the salutation in Col. iv. 15 mere- 
ly as introduction to the subsequent com- 
mission (‘“‘have the letter brought to the 
Laodiceans with my salutation’). But 
how utterly in opposition to the connec- 
tion ! 

4See, in opposition to it, 
p. Xxxix.—Il. - 

5 Who, on the subscription to the Epistle, 
expresses the conjecture that it was sent 
not so much ad Ephesios ipsos proprie, 
“properly to the Ephesians themselves,’ 
as rather to Ephesus, ‘‘ ut ad ceteras Asiaticas 
ecclesias transmitteretur,” ‘“‘that it might 
be transmitted to the other Asiatic 
churches ;” and that hence, probably, arose 
the partial omission of ev “Efpéegw, 

6 Tn his Annales ad ann. 64. 

Tad Basil. l.c. 

§ In Henke’s Magaz. IV. 2, p. 225 ff. 

9 Vermischte Abhandlungen, I. p. 81 fi. 


Harless, 


296 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

Schmidt, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, Flatt, Hemsen, Schott, Feilmoser, 
Schrader, Schneckenburger, Neander, Riickert, Credner, Matthies, Meier, 
Harless, Béttger, Anger, Olshausen, Thiersch,! Guericke, Lange, Bleek, 
and others have, though with manifold variations in detail,? regarded 
our Epistle as a circular letter. In that case Ephesus has mostly been in- 
cluded in the circle of churches concerned, but sometimes—as by Koppe, 
Haenlein,* Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Reiche—entirely excluded ; while 
Laodicea and its neighborhood have been in various ways brought in (accord- 
ing to Credner, ¢.g., one copy of the letter was sent to Hphesus to be circulated 
among the churches on the west coast of Asia Minor ; and another copy 
to Laodicea, to be circulated among the churches in the interior), in fact, 
have even been regarded as the locality for which the Epistle was primarily 
and specially destined ; Bleek being withal of opinion that the Ephe- 
sians only got it to read from Tychicus on his journey to Phrygia, and re- 
tained for themselves a copy of it. But, in opposition to the view of any 
sort of encyclical destination, we may decisively again urge—(a) the univer- 
sal and undivided ecclesiastical tradition, which does not exhibit the very 
slightest trace of such a destination. Indeed, both the orthodox and Mar- 
cion are here at one, since both name only one church as the receiver of the 
Epistle. And when we remember what a high honor any church could not 
but consider it to have received an apostolic writing, the utter disappear- 
ance of all knowledge that our Epistle had belonged to other churches, or 
had been claimed by them as their property, would be quite inconceivable. 
(6) Even apart from the circumstance that Paul does not in the Epistle give 
the slightest hint of any encyclical destination for it, the words of the address 
év ’Edéow, which cannot critically be dislodged, expressly testify against it. 
Paul could not thus address it, if he had intended it for more extended cir- 
culation, or even for other localities.t How very differently he knew how 
to stamp on the face of the Epistles to the Corinthians the body of readers 
for whom they were intended! But if the év ’Edéc@ is held to be spurious 


1 Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 145 sqq. 

2 See Liinemann, p. 33 sqq. 

3 Who has even lighted on the Pelopon- 
nesus | 

4 This holds also in oppostion to the form 
which Harless has given to the matter. 
The readers, in his view, were daughter- 
churches of Ephesus, or Christians scattered 
about the country, who had first been made 
acquainted with the gospel from Ephesus, 
and of whom Paul had received intelligence 
through the Ephesians. To these Christians 
he had forwarded the Epistle through the 
Ephesian church. But as the Ephesian 
church itself might also extract benefit and 
edification from it, the apostle had wished 
that the Epistle should be publicly read to 
the principal church and remain with it. 
Harless conceives of Tychicus as giving the 
following message to the Ephesians: ‘J 


bring to you here aletter which concerns you 
all, but specially the Gentile Christians, of 
whom you have spoken to the apostle. Take 
care that the letter, when it has been read with 
you, should also come into their hands, ye who 
know best the ways and means for that end ; 
and bring me to them, in order that I, in ac- 
cordance with the apostle’s commission, may 
tell them what Ihave told you concerning his 
condition.” Thus the letter would primari- 
ly and mainly have applied to readers ovzt- 
side of Ephesus, and Paul would have ad- 
dressed it rots otow “EN “Edéom? He would 
have suppressed its principal destination, 
and would have placed as the address only 
a mediate and subordinate one? No, Paul 
would have known how really to express in 
the opening address the relation which 
Harless has merely presupposed, if he had 
so conceived of it. See also Reiche, p. 127. 


INTRODUCTION. 297 
(against this view, sce above), then the address, which with év ’Egécw is too 
limited for a circular letter, would without these words be too wide for the 
purpose ; for then no local definition of the readers whatever would be indi- 
cated, and the Epistle would present itself not as an encyelical, but as a 
catholic’ Epistle. (c) If, with Riickert and Olshausen, we should assume that 
Paul, in the several copies which he gave to Tychicus, had left blank the 
name of the place in order that it might be subsequently filled up with the 
names of the churches concerned,’ or that at least in some copies a vacant 
space was left to be filled up at pleasure,* this is (a) altogether an arbitrary 
transplanting of a modern procedure from the counting-houses of the present 
day back into the apostolic age, from which we have circular letters indeed, 
but no trace of such a process of drawing them out, the mechanical 
nature of which would hardly square with the spirit of the apostolic 
age. And (3) would not the Epistle, even if every church concerned had 
received a copy provided with its own name, have yet remained a circular 
letter ? Thus, indeed, in the individual church-names of the different copies 
there would have been just so many contradictions to the proper destination 
of the Epistle. Why, then, should not Paul—in case of his giving to 
Tychicus the alleged circular letter in several copies—have named in every 
address uniformly the recipient churches as a whole? (y) It would have 
been utter folly 4if Paul in a portion of the copies had left the name of the 
place blank, to be filled up according to pleasure in a manner which had not 
already been fixed. Could he write i. 15 ff., vi. 22, without having quite a 
definite conception what churches he had in view? (0) If only the name 
was to be left blank, why was év also omitted ? why did not the copies run 
Toic ovou év . (©) How inexplicable, that only copies 
with éy ’Egéc, and, in addition, those having no name whatever, should 
have had the good fortune to be preserved and distributed ! Each of the 
churches in question would have sought to preserve and to multiply the 
copy addressed to it under its name ; and different traditions with regard to 
the readers would inevitably have been current at a very early date in the 
church side by side. (¢) If Laodicea was in the circle of churches in ques- 
tion, Colossae also was so (Col. iv. 16). But Colossae did not get the 
alleged circular letter through the despatch of a copy intended for the Co- 
lossians, and addressed to them, but had to procure for itself the Laodicean 





. Kal WioTolc K.T.A. 2 


Hpistle from Laodicea (Col. l.c.). 


1 Success cannot attend the attempt men- 
tally to supply the local destination of the 
letter (that disappears with the rejection 
of év’Eféow) from any other quarter in deal- 
ing with so singular and nameless an ad- 
dress. Weiss, /.c. (comp. Reiche), thinks 
that Paul had given information to Tychi- 
eus for what circle of churches in Asia 
Minor the letter was intended; but that 
the later tradition had appropriated it to 
the chief town and chief church, and had 
completed the address accordingly. But 
that premiss is arbitrarily assumed, and 


These arguments tell at the same time 


this bold stroke of tradition would hardly 
have gained universal assent, especially in 
view of its enigmatic relation to the con- 
tents of the Epistle. If Ephesus did not 
from the first stand in the text, as Marcion 
did not read it, the latter would haveacted 
with more tact in having recourse to Laodi- 
ced. 

2 Ussher first suggested this, followed by 
Garnier, Bengel, Eichhorn, Hug, and others. 

3 Moldenhauer, Michaelis, Bertholdt, 
Hemsen, and others. 

4 Comp. Matthaei, ed. min. III. p. 298. 


298 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

against Bleek’s hesitating conjecture, that Paul in the Epistle, which was 
primarily intended for Laodicea, Hierapolis, etc., had left a gap after roic 
odow, because, at the time of writing the letter, he was not yet able to specify 
all the several churches ; as likewise against Anger’s view, that the circular 
letter, primarily destined for Ephesus, had at the same time been destined 
for the daughter-churches of Asia, and among these, also for Laodicea ; 
that Tychicus had to bring it first to Ephesus, from whence it was to make 
its way to the other churches, and so to Laodicea, and from thence to 
Colossae. In opposition to this view, see Zeller’ and Wieseler.? Similarly 
Laurent,? who assumes that Paul had intended the Epistle for the two 
churches, Laodicea and Ephesus, but had only despatched one copy for the 
two, in which he left the designation of the place open. Thus copies with 
designations of the place had arisen through transcripts, some with éy Aaod:- 
keg, some with év ’Edécw, the latter of which obtained the upper hand. 
But from the evidence of Tertullian (see above) we cannot gather that he 
had seen Mss. with év Aaodixeia. Besides, there would subsist no reason at 
all why Paul, if he had written to these two churches, should not also have 
mentioned both of them in the address. 

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, no other critical procedure 
in ascertaining the readers of the Epistle rests on a historical basis but that 
adopted by most of the later commentators, which arrives at the conclusion 
that our Epistle was directed to the Ephesians and to no further church, in 
pursuance of the genuine év ’E¢éow, and in agreement with the primitive 
and universal tradition of the church. So among the later commen- 
tators Whitby, Wolf, Cramer, Morus, and more ,recently Rinck,* Wurm,* 
Wiggers,° Wieseler.7 We must, however, candidly confess that, while 
the difficuities of the individual passages i. 15, iii. 1-4, iv. 21, may 
be elucidated by their exegesis, the tone and contents of so general 
a tenor, the absence of any reminiscences of personal connection with 
the readers, the want of salutations, etc., in an Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians, remain more surprising than would be the case in any other 
Epistle. The appeal made by Wiescler® to the elevated and didactic char- 
acter of the Epistle is not sufficient to explain this strange phenomenon ; 
we lack the historical information for this purpose, and scientific modesty 
and prudence prefer to confess in this case the non liquet, rather than to 


1 Theol. Jahrb. 1844, I. p. 199 ff. 

2 Chronol. d.ap. Zeitalt. p. 442 sq. 

3In the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 
p. 131. 

4 Sendschr. der Koriniher, p. 31 ff., and in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 948 ff. 

5 Inthe Zvb. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 97 f. 

6 Yet he also takes up the view (already 
expressed by Beza in his remarks on the 
subscription), that the apostle has not 
merely regarded the word spoken to the 
Ephesians as spoken to them, but has 
desired and designed a diffusion of the 
Epistle among, and a knowledge of it in, 
wider circles, so that under the one church 


1866, 


he is addressing the whole body of Asiatic 
Christians, which had Ephesus as their 
mother-church and centre. But against 
this view it must be urged—apart from the 
circumstance that St. Paul says nothing 
whatever of this supposed design—that in 
all the other Epistles too he might presup- 
pose their being communicated to wider 
circles, and yet is not thereby withheld from 
entering into particulars, sending saluta- 
tions, and the like. Im the Stud. u. Avit. 
1841, p. 412 ff. 

7 Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 443. 

Sp, 449. 


INTRODUCTION. 


299 


construct hypotheses which, as has been shown, fall to pieces of themselves.’ 
There must have existed historical circumstances which occasioned the Epis- 
tle to receive the strange form that it undoubtedly has, but we are not 


acquainted with them. 


It is very natural, however, to think of the phe- 


nomenon in question as, in part at least, causally connected with the mission 


of Tychicus. 


In accordance with vi. 21 f., Paul may have reserved all de- 


tails to be orally communicated by the latter, who seemed specially fitted 
for this purpose, since he, as an inhabitant of Asia,? as a witness of Paul's 
farewell to the presbyters (Acts xx. 4), and also named elsewhere as an em- 
issary to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12), was undoubtedly very accurately acquainted 
with the relations of Paul to the Ephesians ; while on the part also of 
the apostle himself there might be special motives (based possibly on the 
accusation brought against him by the Jews, Acts xxi. 28, 29, and on the 
covetousness of the venal Felix, Acts xxiv. 26), arising from the conditions 
of his imprisonment and surveillance, for his deeming it advisable by way 
of precaution to compose his Epistle to this particular church, with which 


he was on the most intimate footing, 
and special circumstances. 


without setting forth personal relations 
Nevertheless, this Epistle, as an apostolical 


letter to the Ephesians, with its so general, and, even in various particulars, 
surprising contents, remains an enigma awaiting further solution ; and we 
must confess that if Ephesus had not been given as the place of destination, 
criticism would least of all have been likely to light upon this church among 
the Asiatic churches known to us. [See Note I., p. 308. ] 


SEC. 2.—PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION. 


St. Paul was a prisoner when he wrote the Epistle, iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 20. It 
has always been the prevailing opinion that this imprisonment was the cap- 


tivity af Rome, narrated in the Acts of the Apostles. 


But David Schulz,‘ 


and after him Schneckenburger,+ Schott,* Béttger,® Wiggers,’ Thiersch,*® 
Reuss, Schenkel,” and Zéckler," have decided in favor of the captivity at 


1This holds also of those hypotheses, 
which do not keep to the view of the Chris- 
tian church at Ephesus as such, regarded as 
a whole, being the readers of the Epistle. 
Thus Neudecker (#in/. p. 502) holds that the 
Epistle is directed to that portion of the 
church which had been converted by the 
disciples of the apostle after he had left 
Ephesus; and Liinemann conceives that 
Paul has written to a church which had 
been founded but a short time before in the 
immediate neighborhood of Ephesus, and 
which was so closely bound up with the 
Ephesian Church that it might be considered 
as a part of it. Such hypotheses are strik- 
-ingly and decisively disposed of by the 
simple and definite tots otow év “Edéow, 
which does not admit of any more limited 
interpretation than the addresses tots ovat 
év “Péun, Rom. i. 7; tots ova. év BiAtwzo1s, 


Phil. i. 1, ete. 
2 Perhaps even from Ephesus. In Acts 

xx. 4, Tychicus and Trophimus are named 

as ‘of Asia,” but the latter at least is defi- 

nitely designated in xxi. 29 as an Ephesian. 
3Jn the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 612 ff. 

4 Beitr. p. 144 f. 

5 Graul (Lips. 1836) wrote in opposition to 
Schulz and Schott. 

6 In connection, doubtless, with his 
hypothesis that that Roman imprisonment 
only lasted a few days. 

7 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 436 ff. 

8d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 176. 

® Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T. § 114. 

10 Comp. adso Weiss in Herzog’s Hncykl. 
NOD pow yalsy 

In Vilmar’s Pastoral-theol. Blatt. 1863, 
1) FUG ae 


ar Taal CR a 
‘ 


300 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Caesarea. And rightly so. Not, however, as if the friends of Paul, who 
are named in the contemporary letters to the Colossians and to Philemon 
(Col. iv. 9-14 ; Philem. 10 ff., 23 f.), could not have been with him at Rome, 
as has been sought to be inferred from the Epistle to the Philippians, which 
only (i. 1) mentions Timotheus ;! nor, again, on account of pac épav, Pki- 
lem. 15, which expression as contrasted with aidviov by no means presupposes 
merely a quite short separation of the runaway Onesimus from his master ; 
nor yet because Paul at Rome could not have obtained sufficiently accurate 
information concerning Colossae, for this might, in fact, have been got 
sufficiently by means of Epaphras (Col. iv. 12) ;—but, (1) because it is in 
itself more natural and probable that the slave Onesimus had run away from 
Colossae as far as Caesarea, than that he should have fled, at the cost of a 
long journey by sea, to Rome, the more especially as the fugitive was not 
yet a Christian. The objection,* that in the great city of Rome he would 
have been more secure from being tracked by the fugitivarti, who were every- 
where on the look-out for runaway slaves, cannot be maintained, since this 
police-agency was certainly most to be dreaded in the capital itself and in 
the company of a state-prisoner. (2) If our Epistle and the Epistle to the 
Colossians had been sent from Rome, then would its bearer Tychicus, who 
was accompanied by Onesimus (Col. iv. 8, 9), have arrived at Ephesus first, 
and then at Colossae ; and accordingly we might reasonably expect that 
Panl would have mentioned to the Ephesians along with Tychicus (Eph. vi. 
21, 22) his companion Onesimus (as he does in Col. iv. 8, 9), in order by that 
means to prepare for his beloved Onesimus a good reception among the 
Ephesians. If, on the contrary, Tychicus started with Onesimus from Cae- 
sarea, he arrived by the most direct road, in keeping with the design of the 
journey of Onesimus, first at Colossae, where he left the slave with his mas- 
ter, and thence passed on to Ephesus ; accordingly Paul had, in the circum- 
stance that Onesimus did not go with Tychicus to Ephesus, a natural reason 
for not including a mention of Onesimus in the Epistle to the Ephesians. * 
It is not enough to explain this non-mention from the general absence of 
individual references in our Epistle (Wieseler), since here the question con- 
cerns a single passage, which és really of an individual and personal tenor. 
(3) In Eph. vi. 21, iva 62 eidjre kai ipeic, this cai indicates the conception 
that, when Tychicus should come to the Ephesians, he would have already 
fulfilled the aim here expressed in the case of others. And these others are 
the Colossians (Col. iv. 8, 9), with regard to whom, therefore, Paul knew 
that Tychicus would come jirst to them, which again tells in favor not of 
Rome, but of Caesarea, as the starting-point. If the messenger had been 
despatched from Rome, and so had proceeded from Ephesus to Colossae, we 
should then have expected the «ai at the corresponding passage in the 
Epistle to the Colossians.* Further, (4) Paul, in Philem. 22, asks Philemon 


1 Jn any case the Epistle to the Philippians 24), Acts xxvii. 2. 


was written later. But these friends might 2 See Wieseler, p. 417. 
just as well have been with the apostle at 3 Comp. Wiggers, /.c. p. 440 ff. 
Rome as at Caesarea, as certainly was the 4 Wiggers appeals to ver. 22, holding, 


case with Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10; Philem. namely, that Paul could not legitimately 


INTRODUCTION. 501 


to prepare a lodging for him, and that, too, for speedy use.’ This, on the 
one hand, presupposes the fact that his present place of imprisonment was 
much nearer to Colossae than the far distant Rome, especially considering 
the slowness of navigation in those days ; on the other hand,—and this is 
withal the main point,—we must assume, in the light of this request, that 
Paul thought of coming from his place of imprisonment, after the speedy 
release which he hoped for, direct to Phrygia, and in particular to Colossae 
unto Philemon, without making any intermediate journeys, since otherwise 
there would be no motive for the request as to the immediate preparation of 
a lodging for him at the house of Philemon simultaneously with the taking 
back of Onesimus. But now it is plain from Phil. ii. 24 that Paul, when he 
was lying a prisoner at Rome and was there hoping for his liberation, intended 
to journey to Macedonia (not to Spain, to which his views had been directed 
earlier, Rom. xv. 24),—which, after what has been said above, is not in 
keeping with the bespeaking of a lodging with Philemon. This bespeaking, 
on the other hand, is quite appropriate, if Paul was at Caesarea. From 
that place, after the speedy release which he hoped for, he intended to 
journey through Phrygia and Asia generally, and next to carry out his 
old plan, which was directed to Rome (Rom. i. 10 ff.; Acts xix. 21). 
Whether at this time he still entertained his earlier plan of a journey fo 
Spain (Rom. xv. 24 ; at Phil. ii. 24 he had given it up), is a matter of indif- 
ference for our question. But it is certain that Paul at Caesarea, consider- 
ing his gentle treatment and the lax prosecution of his trial under Felix, 
might hope for speedy liberation (Acts xxiv. 23, 26). It has been main- 
tained” that neither the freedom to preach (vi. 19 ; Col. iv. 3 f. is not here 
relevant), nor the conversion of Onesimus (Philem. 10), suit his condition at 
Caesarea, but that they suit only his position at Rome according to Acts 
xxvili. 30 f. ; but this is to assert too much, for the notice at Acts xxiv. 23 
leaves sufficient scope for our recognizing such activity on the part of the 
captive Paul even in Caesarea. Comp. Introd. to Col. § 2. 

If, accordingly, Paul composed the Epistle in Caesarea, the date of its 
composition is either A.p. 60 or A.D. 61. 

Finally, the question whether this Epistle or that to the Colossians was first 
written, is not to be answered on a psychological basis * by considering their 
inner relationship and peculiar character, because in that case there is too 
much scope left for subjectivity,—as, indeed, on such grounds some have 








have written dv érenwa mpods vas eis avTo 
tovuto «.7T.A., if Tychicus must, in the very 
nature of the case from his being destined 
for Colossae, have come to Ephesus. But 
wrongly. For even if Tychicus, in virtue 
of the direction of his journey (from Rome 
to Colossae), would necessarily have been 
brought by the way of Ephesus, he might 
nevertheless have merely passed through 
it, if St. Paul had not expressly given him 
orders for the definite object of Eph. vi. 22, 
and entrusted him with commissions to the 
church. The fact that Tychicus must nec- 


essarily have travelled by way of Ephesus 
would not therefore exclude the truth of 
the €meuwWa mpds vuas «.7.A. We may add, 
that from Rome the travellers might have 
reached Colossae, without even touching 
at Ephesus,—by way of Miletus possibly,— 
so that Paul, if Rome be presupposed as the 
starting-point, might the more fitly write 
these words. 

1 See on Philem. /.c. 

2See Wieseler, p. 420, Guericke, and 
others. 

3 As, e.g., by Credner, § 157, who holds that 


302 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


found the Epistle to the Ephesians the earlier;’ nor yet by inferring, with 
Hug, from the non-mention of Timothy in the Epistle to the Ephesians, that 
this Epistle was written earlier than the letters to the Colossians and to 
Philemon, because in the latter Timothy shares in the salutation, and must 
thus have have joined Paul later.?- But that the Epistle to the Colossians 
was written before that to the Ephesians, is to be assumed for the following 
reasons : (1) As Colossae was the first and nearest goal which Tychicus, in 
company with the Colossian Onesimus, would reach from Caesarea (sec 
above), it could not but be the most natural and obvious course for the apos- 
tle to write the letter to the Colossians sooner than the letter which was to 
be delivered only at a further stage of his friend’s journey ; (2) kat tpeic, 
vi. 21, refers to the passage Col. iv. 7, and presupposes that Paul had al- 
ready written and had in his recollection this latter Epistle. If, indeed, 
the Epistle to the Laodiceans were identical with the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians, then, according to Col. iv. 16, the Epistle to the Colossians would 


necessarily be the later. But see § 1, and on Col. iv. 16. 


SEC. 3.—GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


After previous expressions of doubt on the part of Schleiermacher* and 
Usteri, de Wette has come forward more decidedly than before, assailing 
the genuineness of the Epistle ;* and the critics of Baur’s school ® relegate 
the Epistle to the age of Gnosticism and Montanism, whereas de Wette ° 
still allows it to belong to the apostolic age, and to a gifted disciple of 
the apostle as its author. So too Ewald; 7 he denies that it was written by 
Paul, but yet places it much nearer to the great apostle than the Pastoral 
Epistles ; while Weisse ® lightly characterizes it as an unapostolic paraphrase 


the Epistle to the Ephesians was written 
earlier—(1) Because its aimis the more gen- 
eral, and that of the Epistle to the Colos- 
sians, as the special, is subordinate. (2) 
Because the former, as directed (according 
to Credner’s view) to unknown Pauline 
Christians in Asia, would have required the 
most mature consideration, whereas the 
Epistle to the Colossians would be much 
more easily drawn up, since Paul had 
Epaphras and Onesimus with him—and so it 
eould not fail but that a portion of the ideas 
laid down in the former Epistle would be 
transferred also to the latter, in such wise 
that what was there general in tenor would 
assume a special form. (3) Because in our 
Epistle the expression is more abstract, ete. 
—It would not be difficult, with equal 
plausibility, to invert the relation, and to 
represent the more special, the easier, and 
more concrete as psychologically antecedent 
to the more general, more difficult, and 
more abstract shape. 


. 


1 Cornelius & Lapide, B6hmer, Credner, 


Schneckenburger, Matthies, Anger, Guer- 
icke, Reuss, and others that to the Colos- 
sians (Schleiermacher, Harless, Neander, 
Meier, Wiggers, de Wette, Bleek, Weiss). 

2 We might, in fact, with equal right infer 
the converse, viz., that Timothy had, at the 
writing of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
already left Paul again and had journeyed 
to some other quarter, so that this Epistle 
would be the later—as Schott really judges 
it to be. 

3 Vorl. vib. Hinl. I. N. T. p. 165 f., 194. 

4 Bveget. Handbuch, zweite Aufl. 1847, and 
Finl., fiinfte Aufl. 1848. 

5 Schwegler, krit. Miscellen zum Epheseror., 
in Zeller’s theol. Jahrb. 1844, 2, p. 378 ff.; 
nachapostol. Zeitalt. Il. p. 3830 ff., 3875 ff.; 
Baur, Paulus, p. 418 ff., comp. also his 
Christenth. ad. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 104 ff. 

® Comp. Schleiermacher. 

7 Sendschr. ad. P. p. xii.; Geschichte a. apost. 
Zeit. n. 243 ff. 

® Dogmat. I. p. 146. 


INTRODUCTION. 303 
of the Epistle to the Colossians, and Hausrath' speaks of it as an Epistle to 
the Laodiceans retouched by another hand. 

De Wette’s reasons, in addition to his finding the destination for Ephesus 
unsuitable, are as follow : that the Epistle, which is devoid of all specially 
distinctive character in its aim and references, is so dependent on the Epis- 
tle to the Colossians, which is almost a mere verbose amplification of it, as 
to be out of keeping, when divested of the reference to the false teachers. 
Such a copying from himself is unworthy of the apostle ; the style, too, is 
un-Pauline, overladen as it is with parentheses and accessory clauses, in- 
volving a want of connection (ii. 1, 5, ii. 1, 13), copious in words but poor 
in thoughts ; so, too, are the divergences in particular expressions,” as well 
as in the thoughts, doctrinal opinions, and mode of teaching.? But (@) 
while the absence of any concrete and direct peculiarity of character in its 
aim and references is surprising, it is altogether unfavorable to any doubts 
as to its genuineness, partly because the bringing out at all of a writing 
under an apostle’s name and authority makes us presuppose more definite 
tendencies and more readily recognizable conditions as aimed at in it ; partly 
because, in particular, the circumstances of the Ephesian church, and the 
close relationship of the apostle to them, must have been so generally 
known, that a non-apostolic author would either have deliberately taken 
account of and employed them, or else, if the design of his undertaking 
permitted it, would have made another and happier selection of an address 
than this very év’Edéow. He who could prepare under the name of the 
apostle an Epistle of so throughly Pauline a tenor, must have been quite 
able to imitate him in the mention and handling of concrete circumstances, 
and would, by such an omission of those matters as is apparent in our Epis- 
tle, neither have satisfied himself nor have answered his design of person- 
ating Paul—so much would he have failed in acting his part. The very 
fact that the Epistle, as an Epistle to the Ephesians, had its genuineness so 
generally recognized by the ancient church, is, when we consider the gen 
eral nature of its contents, which always remains mysterious, a doubly valid 
evidence that this recognition has historically arisen out of immediate and 
objective certainty. Further, (6) as regards the relation of the Epistle to 
that to the Colossians, there appear, as is well known, many resemblances in 


1@, Ap. Paulus, 1865, p. 2, 138. 

By 20s ala Oy llls LO} 
vi. 12; Ta mvevpatika, Vi. 123 SiaBodos, iv. 
27, vi. 11 (elsewhere only in1 and 2 Tim.) ; 
koop.oKxpatwp, Vi. 12; cwtyprov, Vi. 16. Words 
differently used: otxovoyta, i. 10, ili. 2,9; 
puotyptoyv, Vv. 82 (as in Rev. i. 20, xvii. 5, 7) ; 
mAjpwua, i. 23(comp. Col.i. 19, ii. 9); evAoyla, 
j. 3; aidv,ii. 2; meptrotnots, i. 14; afOapoic, 
Vi. 24; pavOdverv, iv. 20; gwrigey, iii. 9; 
mAnpovobat ev, V. 18; Az. eis, iii. 19; the com- 
binations BactAcia tod Oeod Kat Xprorod, v. 
5; To @€Anua ToD Kupiov, y.17. Interruption 
and resumption of the construction, iii. 2- 
14; the constructions tote ywookortes, V. 5; 
tva doBjra, v.33; tva with the optative, 


2 ‘ey tols émovpaviots, i. 


i. 17, iii. 26. Frequent omission of the article 
before defining additions, i. 3, 15, ii. 7, 11, 
15, 21 f., and other passages; diffuseness 
and pleonasm, i. 19, vi. 10, iii. 18; ii. 6 f., 21 
(év Xpiore Incod), and various other points.” 

3‘*Unbecoming appeal of the apostle to 
his insight, iii. 4; putting together of the 
apostles and prophets, ii. 20, iii. 5; arbitrary 
use of the passage in the Psalms at iv. 8; 
quotation of a non-biblical passage, v. 14; 
the conceptions of demonology, ii. 2, vi. 12; 
the characteristics of God, i. 17, iii. 9, 15; 
the laying stress on Old Testament promise, 
y. 2f.; the dissuasion from theft, iv. 28 ; the 
un-Pauline salutation. vi. 23 f.” 


304 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 





matter and form—some even literal—between the two Epistles.’ This may, 
however, be sufficiently explained, in part subjectively from the fact that 
Paul had just written the Epistle to the Colossians before writtng to the 
Ephesians, so that his mind was still full of and pervaded by the ideas, 
warnings, and exhortations which he had expressed in the former ; in part 
objectively, from the fact that the state of affairs at Ephesus must have 
been well enough known to the apostle to induce him to repeat various 
portions of the writing which he had just composed for another Asiatic 
church, and that to Such a degree that he considered it fitting even to re- 
produce various things word for word from the Epistle to the Colossians, 
which lay before him. To declare this a course unworthy of the apostle is 
rash, since we have no other pair of letters from his hand issued so contem- 
poraneously and under the influence of so similar a train of thought. But 
while certainly several elements from the Epistle to the Colossians have 
been amplified as to verbal expression in ours, there are also several that are 
reproduced in a more concise form (e.g., i. 15-17 compared with Col. i. 3, 4 ; 
Eph. ii. 16 with Col. i. 20 ; Eph. iv. 32 with Col. iii. 12 f., and others) ; 
and those amplifications admit of natural explanation from renewed dwelling 
on the same thoughts, in which Paul did not proceed mechanically, and a 
mind such as his easily had recourse to more words rather than fewer in 
setting forth the subject afresh. At any rate, de Wette’s judgment of it 
as almost nothing but a verbose amplification, is exaggerated, seeing that the 
two Epistles present in their course of thought, tenor, and mode of treat- 
ment very essential differences,* and the conclusion that a pseudo-Paul was 
at work would, at all events, be too hasty, so long as it was not from other 
sufficient grounds clear that Paul could not have been himself the amplifier. 
On the other hand, it is scarcely conceivable of an amplifying imitator, that 
one so intimately acquainted with the apostle’s ideas and diction, should 
have chosen a single Pauline Epistle for the sole and often literal basis of his 


1 Eph. i. 7, comp. Col. i. 14. Eph. iv. 29, comp. Col. iii. 8, iv. 6. 
sr i. 10, "a te i. 20. ae Peal acils ce $e) CTs 
emit = isd; 4 se iv.82) it Die 
ik, 02h x Cin 27: Oy ae cs COT, 
Oi tants Dale ia A tealy oO vind: " ) yihlenee 
pela. s Bore sala] Out. aaa}, ss to ibos 
ae emUBT Tail el - i Tea eee vite fs se iiT6s 
Seva. 55 = BO hy ae? CC eaveRl oy * Silvers 
Othe, TG a Se eld. SS evi LO), amin ce Alispl Gite 
othe alae, a oe ts .2(): ss svarel: Beattie 1s} 
aia bh ee Ie bi ee Bee ay Dah, ce Tide 
So allie, re Py 12a evens s SC T20: 
O25 shits oe ve Hen enters Se yi x4 tt be tity ale 
Sh witty 7/5 ss CPs TRB) ebay, USS aval saat, Ss * iiin2enhe 
Ho arbby {a} ie ea eT Cy Meee “ sevivenle 
omlynel o St a0) Peo ttshiiny a 66 iy oie 
“Sine: ey Hon rik, SP ab Pallin, oe Sevenvebs 
ened heirs ti ies os eesti l ate See the table in de Wette, p. 286 ff. Comp. 
CO arhyg Tas & Me abe ag Bemmelen, Diss. de epp. ad Eph. et Col. inter 
aha alt), so Seeeriin denb: se collat., Lugd. Bat. 1808, 
SPT liveneeites an ae SOs aliits Chri 2See Harless, p. lxix. ff.; Liinemann, de 


iv. 25 f£. x ee Hilt Ep. ad Eph. authentid, etc , p. 10 ff. 


INTRODUCTION. 305 


work ; for thereby he would merely have imposed an unnecessary restriction 
on himself, and have increased the probability of his fiction, made up 
though it might be in the best sense, being recognized as such. A man, 
who could think and write in so Pauline a manner as that wherein the por- 
tions not parallel to the Colossian Epistle are thought and written, might 
with ease have given to his pretended apostolic treatise a shape quite dif- 
ferent and not so palpably exhibiting any single source. (¢) With respect 
to the objections taken to the style of the Epistle as too diffuse, loaded with 
parentheses and accessory clauses, carrying with it a want of connection 
(ii. 1, 5, iii. 1, 18), verbose, and poor in new ideas, it is to be observed, 
first, and generally, that this verdict is an unfavorable judgment resting on 
taste and subjective in character ; and, secondly, that in its individual con- 
crete references it relates to a certain peculiarity of the Epistle, which yet 
is not un-Pauline, seeing that, in fact, the unity of mould and flow, the 
pectus atque indoles Paulinae mentis, ‘‘the heart and character of the Pauline 
mind,”? which pervades it from beginning to end,’ leads us more fairly and 
justly to set down the greater diffuseness, and what is called overloading, 
to the account of the apostle himself, deeply moved as he was by his subject. 
There is greater diffuseness certainly, but how natural is this, when we con- 
sider the general character of the grand subject-matter and of its evolution, 
and the absence of casual contents! There are a number of parentheses 
and accessory clauses certainly, but not after an un-Pauline fashion, and 
natural enough to a writer so full of the ideas concerned and the collateral 
thoughts suggested by them. Nowhere is there in reality want of connec- 
tion, as it is the province of the exposition to show. A poverty of new 
ideas is merely apparent in proportion to the standard of the expectation 
cherished @ priori ; the letter abounds in many-sided modifications and ex- 
panded statements of thoughts which were vividly present to the writer’s 
mind, in part from the Epistle to the Colossians, but a rich accession of new 
ideas was neither withal intended nor called forth by dialectic controversy 
(as to the copiousness of diction, see above). As respects (d) the particular 
divergences of style, aza& Aeydueva are found in every Epistle of Paul, as 
well as other peculiar modes of expression, as may readily be conceived in 
the case of a letter-writer having so delicate and comprehensive a mastery 
of the Greek language ; but no one of the proofs brought forward by de 
Wette (which are in part inappropriately selected, and, on the other hand, 
might have had their number increased), is at variance with the idiosyncrasy 
of the apostle. And, further, (¢) ara£ voobueva are not appropriate grounds 
for doubting the genuineness of a writing in dealing with one whose mind 
was so inexhaustibly rich, and whose conception moved with such admirable 
Freedom and many-sidedness in the Christian sphere, as was the case with 
St. Paul. Everything which is adduced as surprising in conception and 
doctrine may be psychologically and historically explained as standing in 


1 Erasmus. ac pectus,” ‘‘In this epistle of Paul there 
2 *“*Tdem in hac epistola Pauli fervor, is the same fervor, the same depth, and 
eadem profunditas, idem omnino spiritus altogether the same spirit and heart.” 


20 


306 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

full accord with the pure Pauline Gospel (see the exposition), and the ob- 
jections which are taken to the mode of teaching find analogies in other 
Pauline Epistles, and rest upon aesthetic presuppositions, which in a his 
torico-critical examination of the New Testament writings supply us with 
but very uncertain criteria, seeing that in such a case modern taste is much 
too easily called in as an extraneous ground influencing the judgment. 
The more candidly de Wette speaks out as to the Epistle not having been 
composed in the apostolic age, and makes a gifted diseiple of Paul to be its 
author, the more insoluble he makes the riddle, that such an one should 
have left his treatise without trace of individual historical relations of the 
apostle to the Ephesians, which it would have been so easy for him to inter- 
weave. Lastly, the reasons urged by the school of Baur, according to 
which this Epistle and the companion Epistle to the Colossians, forming a 
spurious pair, are held to be a product of Gnosis in opposition to Ebionit- 
ism,’ are disposed of, when the exposition, dealing in a strictly objective 
manner, demonstrates in the very places which have been called in question 
simply Pauline contents. See, in opposition to Baur’s contrast, specially 
Klépper,? and with regard to the Christology of our letter and that to the 
Colossians, Riibiger.* The more decisive in that case becomes the weight, 
which the external attestation by uninterrupted church-iradition throws 
into the scale. This attestation has been even dated back to the Apostolic 
Fathers ; but in Ignatius, Hph. 12, the Epistle is not at all directly men- 
tioned,* and in Polycarp, Phil. 12, where it is said: ‘‘ut in his seripturis 
dictum est : Jrascimini et nolite peccare, et : Sol non occidat super iracundiam 
vestram,” ‘‘that in these writings, it is said: ‘Be ye angry and sin not,’ 
and ‘ Let not the sun go down upon your wrath,’” there is no quotation of 
Eph. iv. 26, but rather, as in his scripturis, ‘‘in these writings” (comp. imme- 
diately before : in sacris literis, ‘‘in the Holy Scriptures”) and the intervening 
et, ‘‘and,” prove, the citation of two Old Testament sayings, namely, Ps. iv. 5 
and Deut. xxiv. 13, 15, though the connecting of these two passages may be 
based on a reminiscence of our Epistle.* Apart from the citations in the 
interpolated Ignatian letters, the undoubted and express ecclesiastical attes- 
tation begins with Irenaeus, Haer. v. 2, 3, and v. 14. 3, and is not inter- 
rupted by any contradiction.* Even the Valentinians already in Irenaeus, 


1 Comp. on Col. Introd. § 3. 

2 De orig. epp. ad Eph. et Col., Gryph. 
1853. 

3 De Christologia Paulina, p. 42 ff.; Lange, 
apost. Zevtait. 1. 1, p. 11% ff. Lange, how- 
ever, wrongly defines the Christological 
distinction of the two Epistles, p. 117, to the 
effect, that in the Ephesian letter Christ is 
the Omega, in the Colossian the Alpha, of 
all things. In both letters He is the A and 
the ©, but in the Colossian letter the Chris- 
tological theme stands in the foreground, 
and is treated more sedulously and more 
comprehensively. 

4 See above, § 1. 

©The general question, whether at this 


date Apostolic Fathers adduce New Testa- 
ment sayings with ws yéypamrat, ypady, and 
the like, does not therefore pertain to us 
here. Specially important in this relation 
is the citation in Barnabas 4, in regard to 
which Credner, Beitr. I. p. 28, has been mis- 
taken in answering that question in the 
negative, as the Codex Sinaiticus showed. 
The citation from Barnabas is certainly not 
to be referred to a written source generally 
(Weizsiicker), nor even to 4 Esdr. viii. 3, 
which passage is heldto be confounded 
with Matth. xix. 30 (Volkmar). 

6 Marcion held it as Pauline, but as ad- 
dressed to the Laodiceans. 


INTRODUCTION. 307 


i. 8. 5, cite Eph. v. 13 expressly as a saying of Paul, and in the Philosoph. 
of Origen, vi. 34, as ypad7. 


Remark. — The apparent resemblances to the first Epistle of Peter of ex- 
pressions and thoughts in the Epistle to the Ephesians ! are too little character- 
istic adequately to justify us in presupposing a dependence of our Epistle on 
that of Peter.2 We should rather assume the converse, when we remember 
how strictly Paul preserved and acutely vindicated his apostolic independence; 
but it is quite sufficient to take our stand on the creative power of the church- 
language formed by Paul, from which Peter was neither able nor willing to 
hold himself aloof, while it remains an open question whether he had read 
Hpistles of Paul. 2 Pet. (iii. 15 f.) is not genuine. 


SEC. 4.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS. 


We are unable to perceive from the letter itself any special occasion given 
for it on the part of the Ephesians ; hence it seems to have been called forth 
by mere accident through the mission of Tychicus and Onesimus to Colos- 
sae—an opportunity, which Paul made use of to send Tychicus also to Ephe- 
sus, in order not only to supply the Christians there with (oral) news of 
him, and to obtain news of them, but also to address to them a written dis- 
course, partly on the glory of redemption and of their state as Christians, 
partly on the conduct in keeping with it, in order to strengthen and further 
them in steadfastness and unity of faith and Christian morality ; yet not 
so, that the proper aim of the Epistle * is to be discerned in the irenic sec- 
tion iv. 1-16. There are no traces of Ephesian false teachers, similar to 
those at Colossae,* in the Epistle (for iv. 14 f. may be explained from the 
general experience of the apostle, and v. 6 relates to moral seductions) ; 
neither is a precautionary regard to such theosophy and asceticism ° at any 
rate capable of proof, since in the Epistle itself it is not at all hinted at. 
Bengel well says : ‘‘Singulare haec epistola specimen praebet tractationis 
evangelicae in thest . . . inde nullum speciatim errorem aut vitium refutat 
aut redarguit, sed generatim incedit,” ‘‘ This epistle furnishes a unique speci- 
men of evangelical treatment thetically . . . hence he refutes or reproves 
no error or vice specially, but proceeds generally.” Paul may, however, 
have had in the background the thought of the possible approach of that 
Gnostic danger, though he did not consider it necessary or suitable at this 
time to furnish an express reference or warning to that effect. 

As regards contents, the Epistle divides itself into a predominantly dogmat- 
ic and a predominantly hortatory portion. The dogmatic portion is a lofty ° 


1See Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 426 ff., 5 See Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 135 ff.; 
who has, however, adduced under this Olshausen; comp. also Meier and Weiss. 
head far too much. Suypnrav ahodpa yeuer TOY vonLaTwY Kat 

2 Weiss, who considers both genuine; wzepdycwv: & yap pndapod cxedov épbéyéato, 
Schwegler, whoregards both as spurious. TavTa evtavda Sydor, “He is exceedingly full 

3 de Wette. of thoughts and lofty things; what he 


4 This in opposition to Michaelis, Haen- almost nowhere utters, that he here ex- 
lein, Flatt, Schott, Neudecker, and others. plains,’’ Chrysostom. 


308 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


effusion over the glory and blessedness of the redemption effected through 
Christ, to which also the readers, formerly Gentiles, had attained, and there- 
after over the relation of the apostle to this saving dispensation, and to the 
share of the readers therein (chap. i. ili.). The hortatory portion summons 
them to a conduct worthy of their calling, and, first of all, to Christian 
unity (iv. 1-16) ; and then to a moral walk opposed to their previous Gen- 
tile life—which is illustrated in detail as concerns very diversified conditions 
and relations (iv. 17—-vi. 20). By way of conclusion, Paul refers, as regards 
his personal relations, to Tychicus, of whose mission he specifies the object 
(vi. 21 f.), and ends witha double benediction (vi. 23 f.).—Luther (in his 
editions of the N. T. down to 1537) reckons the Epistle among ‘‘ the gen- 
uine and noblest books of the New Testament, which show to thee Christ, 
and teach everything which it is necessary and good for thee to know, even 
though thou shouldest never see or hear any other book or doctrine.” 


Note By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


I. ev ’Egéow. (See p. 299.) 


Meyer is supported also by Alford (who answers at length, vol. ili. pp. 13-18, 
the contrary arguments of Conybeare and Howson), Eadie, Ellicott, Words- 
worth, Braune, Riddle, Scrivener (Introd. to Criticism of N. T., Second Ed., 
p. 101). On the other hand, see Schaff (Church History, I., p. 779), and Westcott 
and Hort, in Appendix to N. T., pp. 123 sqq. The latter would retain the reading 
in different type, as “ a legitimate but unavoidably partial supplement to the 
true text, filling up a chasm which might be perplexing to a reader in later 
times.” 


CHAP. I. 309 


ITlavaov éxictoln zpos Eqeciovs. 


ABDEFGEK 8, min. have the shorter and older superscription: zpoc 
"Edeciovc. I, min.: tov dyiov axoo7bAov LavAov éExiotoAy mpoc ’Edec. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. év ’E¢éow] See Introd. §1. Tisch. has put it in brackets. — Ver. 3. év 
before Xpioré is wanting only in some min.,—an omission, which, although 
followed in the editions of Erasmus, Steph. 3, and Beza, and approved of by 
Mill, is not at all deserving of notice as a various reading, — Ver. 6. év 7] AB 
N* min. Chrys. (alic.) have 7c. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
[Tisch. Treg.] and Riick., and rightly so. The attraction was resolved partly 
by the simple 7 (so Theophy]. Ambrosiast.), partly, in keeping with the preva- 
lence of év in the context, by év 7, which latter is defended by Reiche on insuffi- 
cient grounds. — Ver. 10. ta év Toi¢ oipavoic] The ré read in Elz. after 7a is, on 
decisive evidence, deleted by the later editors (except Harless). But in place of 
év, BD EL g* min. Theodoret, Dam. Oecum. Tert. have éxi, which Lachm. 
[Tisch. Treg. Hofm.] and Riick. have rightly received. The usual form of con- 
ception, év Toi¢ ovpavoic (comp. iil. 15), superseded the apparently unsuitable 
éxi, At Col. i. 20, many min. Chrys. and Theodoret have likewise ér? roic¢ otp- 
avoic, where é7i, indeed, is too weakly attested, but has most probably come 
from our passage. — Ver. 11. é«Anpdfmuev] A D E F G, It. have éxAjOnuev. 
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Riick. But Matth. Harless, 
Tisch. Reiche [Treg. Hofm. Ewald, Holtzm.] have rightly defended the still more 
considerably attested Recepta as the more difficult reading, glossed by é«A7Onuev. 
The gloss is to be derived from Rom. viii. 13 : od¢ dé mpodpice, TobTOvG Kai ExadAece. 
—Ver. 12. ric before ddénc is, following Griesb., deleted by the more recent 
editors (except Harless) on preponderating evidence. An addition easily sug- 
gested ; comp. ver. 14.—Ver. 14. ¢] A B F G L, min. Athan. Cyr. Euthal. 
Chrys. (in the text) have 6. So Lachm. and Rick. But 6 was, on account of 
the preceding rvevua, the more easily introduced and retained, since by that 
means the old opinion, that 6¢ applies to Christ, was met. — Ver. 15. tijv ayamnv 
THv] Lachm. has only 777, following A B x* 17, Cyr. (alic.) Jer. Aug. (alic.). A 
copyist’s error, and how easily caused by the repetition of the r7v! If the 
addition had been made from Col. i. 4, jv éyere would have been inserted in- 
stead of the second r7v. — Ver. 16. The second juov is wanting in ABD &, 
min. Cant. Goth. Hil. ; F and G have it after rovovpevoc. Deleted by Lachm. 
and Riick. A defining addition, which was first written in the margin, and 
then inserted, sometimes before, sometimes after tovotuevoc. — Ver. 18. xapdiac] 
Elz. has dvavoiac, against decisive testimony. An interpretation. — xa‘] is want- 
ing in AB D* FG &* 59, It. Goth. Ambrosiast. Victorin., and is deleted by 
Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.j and Riick., but came to be more readily left out than 


310 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


added, because the concluding «ai only comes in afterwards. — Ver. 20. évjp- 
ynoev| Lachm. reads évjpynxev, after A B, Cyr. Procop.; and rightly so. The 
aorist, in itself more in current use, was suggested by the aorists following, And 
the attestation is strong enough, since the vss. and Latin Fathers cannot be 
taken into account.—éxa6icev] Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.] and Riick. read xaficac, 
following A B 8, min. Slav. Vulg. Cyr. utr. Euseb. Procop. Tert. Jer. Ambr. 
Pel. An attempt to help out the construction. — oipavoic, instead of éxovpaviore, 
though adopted by Lachm., is too feebly attested by B, Victorin. Hilar. — Ver. 
23. 7a] is wanting in Elz., but has been, upon decisive evidence, restored by 
Bengel, Griesb. and the later editors ; comp. ver. 22. 


Contents.—After the usual address and apostolic salutation (vv. 1, 2), 
St. Paul begins with an ascription of praise to God for the salvation in Christ 
(ver. 3), which he sets forth (a) as already lovingly predestined by God in eter- 
nity to the praise of His grace (vv. 4, 5) ; (0) as brought about by the death 
of Christ (vv. 6, 7) ; then (¢) asmade known according to the purpose of the 
divine kindness, to unite all in Christ (vv. 8-10) ; and lastly, (d) as really 
appropriated according to the predestination of God (ver. 11) ; this latter 
in respect as well to those who had been Jews (ver. 12) as to those who had 
been Gentiles (vv. 18, 14), both of whom were destined to the praise of 
the divine glory.—Wherefore, since the Gentiles also had attained to such 
happiness, he too, after having heard of their faith and love, ceases not to 
give thanks for his readers, when making mention of them in his prayers, 
in order that God might enlighten them by His Spirit concerning the hope 
to which their cailing exalted them, the glory of the future salvation, and 
the greatness of the divine power in the believers (vv. 15-19), which power 
they were to recognize by what God had wrought in the case of Christ, 
whom He had raised from the dead and exalted above all, and had given 
Him as Lord over all to be Head to the church, which is His body—that which 
is filled by Him, who filleth all with all (vv. 20-23). 

Vv. 1, 2. Aca OcA#u. Ocov] See on 1 Cor. i. 1. —roi¢ dyiowe] See on Rom. i. 
7. — Kal mioroic év X. ’I.] furnishes, with roic dytou, the completeness of the 
conception, hence it is not an epexegesis,’ but an appended clement, and xaé 
is the closely copulative and. Comp. Col. i. 2. It is not, however, the 
conception of fidelity and perseverance which is appended,® but the notion of 
faith in Christ, since in the address, where the persons are to be designated 
very distinctly, roic dyiowe alone would not yet characterize the readers ex- 
pressly as Christians. Comp. Phil. i. 1. —év Xpor6 "Ijooi'] does not belong 
to dyiow and moroic, so that it would denote the sphere, within which the 
Christians are saints and believing,*® for otherwise (comp. on Col. 1. 2) Kai 
mstoic would be quite superfluous and a tame and heavy addition, inasmuch 
as the notion of dyioc év Xpiot@ presupposes the notion of miorb¢ év XpioT@ 5 
but merely to moroic : fidem in Christo reponentibus, i.e. ‘to those reposing 
faith in Christ.” Comp. i. 15, and see on Mark i. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26. — Ver. 2. 
‘See on Rom. i. 7. 


1 Beza, Vorstius, Calovius, and others. ready Calovius. 
2 Grotius, Locke, Baumgarten, Rosen- 3 Harless; comp. Boyd, Storr, Opuse. I. 
miller, Meier; see, on the other hand, al- p. 121, Meier, Schenkel. 


CHAP. T:, 3. 311 


Ver. 8. EvAoyyréc] praised (113), sc. ety. Comp. Rom. ix. 5; 2 Cor. i. 3; 
Luke i. 68; 1 Pet. i. 3; 1 Kings xv. 39. It is prefixed here, since, as in 
most doxologies (see on Rom. ix. 5), in keeping with the emotion of the 
heart which breaks forth in songs of praise, the emphasis lies on it. Where 
the stress in conformity with the context rests upon the person, this is pre- 
fixed, as at 1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Jobi. 21; Ps. lxviii. 19, cxii. 1, 
2; Rom. ix. 5. The second Epistle to the Corinthians begins also with an 
ascription of praise to God, and the general character of that now before us 
cannot, in view of the general contents of the Epistle (comp. 1 Pet. i. 3 ff.), 
appear un-Pauline (in opposition to de Wette), especially as the thanksgiv- 
ing which has reference to the readers comes in afterwards in ver. 15 f. —6 
Oed¢ Kai TaTHp Tov Kupiov K.t.A| God, who at the same time is the Father of Jesus 
Christ. See on Rom. xv. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Theodore of 
Mopsuestia in Cramer’s Catena. Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact, and 
others, including Michaclis, Koppe, Rtickert, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek 
[Ewald, Hofmann, Braune], have incorrectly attached rot kvpiov 7dr also to 
6 @edc. It is true, indeed, that there is no objection to the idea ‘‘ the God 
of Christ” in itself, and ré before cai would not be at all necessary, as 
Harless thinks (see iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. ii. 25, al.) ; but against it stands the fact 
that 6 Oed¢ Kai xatip, even without a genitive, was a stated Christian 
designation of God (comp. on Rom. xv. 6), in which case raz7jp only, and 
not Gdc, requires a complementary genitive (v. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ;-Jas. 1. 
27, iii. 9). Moreover, the expression the God of Christ stands so isolated in 
the N. T. (see on ver. 17), that we may not attribute to it any such cur- 
rency, as it must have had, if it were contained in the formula 6 Oed¢ kai 
matyp Tov Kupiov x.7.A. [See Note IL., p. 350.] — 6 eiAoyhoac yuac| Aorist: by 
the work of redemption. Observe the ingenious correlation of the passive 
evioyntéc and the active eiAoyjcac, as well as the dilogia, by which the for- 
mer denotes the blessing in word, and the latter the blessing in deed (comp. 
Rom. xv. 29 ; 2 Cor. ix. 5 f.; Gal. iii. 8,9, 14 ; Acts iii. 26). uae applies 
to the Christians generally, not to Paul,’ against which view the unsuitable- 
ness of such a thanksgiving of the apostle for himself at the head of the 
Epistle, as well as the actual plurality of persons in the whole context (vv. 
4, 11, 12), and «ayo, ver. 15, are decisive. —év rdoy evdoyia mvevuatixh| In- 
strumental : by His imparting to us every spiritual blessing ;? none has He 
withheld from us. This, however, is not to be explained as Blessing, which 
concerns our spirit,® but : proceeding from the Holy Spirit, because the dis- 
tinctively Christian benefits are meant, and these are yapiopata. Comp. 
Rom. i. 11, xv. 29; 1 Cor. xii. 1 ff. This blessing is wrought by God from 
heaven through the communication of the Spirit (ver. 13; Gal. iii. 5; 
1 Cor. xii. 6, and elsewhere), hence God is praised for it. We may add that a 
contrast to the earthly benefits promised to the Jews in the Old Testament,‘ or 
to the typical blessings of the Jews and the empty possessions of the Gentiles, ° 


1 Koppe. ler ; Koppe and Riickert are undecided. 
2 Comp. Test. XI. Patr. p. 722: ebdoy. év 4 Grotius and others, including recently 
ayabots, Holzhausen. 


®* Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, Rosenmiil- 5 Schottgen. 


312 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

is foreign to the context. Paul denotes the matter in a purely positive 
form as it is, according to its characteristic nature; hence there is not in 
mdoy any contrast to merely sporadic blessings in the O. T. The eidoyia con- 
sists in the most varied expressions, as in grace, truth, peace, joy, love, 
hope, consolation, patience, and all Christian virtues as the fruit of the 
Spirit (Gal. v. 22; Rom. v. 1 ff.). Compare ray ayafov 76 év juiv, Philem. 
6. —év toic éxoupavioic] local : in the heavenly regions, in heaven. Comp. ver. 
20, ii. 6, iii. 10, vi. 12. Against the instrumental rendering, according to 
which it is understood, as a more precise definition of the spiritual blessing, 
of the heavenly possessions,’ we may urge, not the article,*—which would 
very appropriately denote the category, —but the fact, that Paul has not 
added dyatoic or yapicuac, just because in our Epistle év roi¢ éxovpaviose is 
constantly a designation of place.* The local év roic érovpavio is referred, 
either to God, so that heaven appears as the seat where the divine blessing 
is being prepared*—but how idle and self-evident that would be ! or to jueic, 
so that heaven, as the seat of our woAirevua (Phil. iii. 20), would be the scene 
of the divine blessing. So Pelagius, Beza (who leaves a choice between the 
two views), Grotius (who says that the blessings place us et spe et jure in 
coelo, ‘‘ both by hope and right in heaven”), Baumgarten, Koppe, Rickert, 
and others. The aorist would not be at variance with this view, since the 
matter might be set forth proleptically in accordance with an ideal mode of 
looking at it (comp. ii. 6). But the whole explanation is far-fetched and 
opposed to the context ; for rvevuarex@ shows that Paul has not thought of 
our having received this blessing in the heavenly rodirevua, seeing that the 
Holy Spirit is received on earth as the present earnest of the heavenly herit- 
age (vv. 13, 14). Accordingly, the third reference remains the only correct 
one, under which év roic éxovpavioi is attached as « local definition to eiAoyia 
with every spiritual benefit in heaven, so that, because the Holy 
Spirit is in heaven, as is God Himself 6 tiv karouxiay éxovpavior éyov (2 Mace. 
iii. 39), the blessings also of the Spirit are regarded as to be found in heaven 
and brought down thence to us. See Heb. vi. 4. [See Note IIL, p. 850 seq. | 
—év Xpior@] for in Christ lay the ground of that evAoye7 accomplished in our 
case ; not out of Christ, but in Him lay the cause that God blessed us with 
every spiritual blessing, since His act of redemption is the causa meritoria, 
‘“‘meritorious cause,” of this divine bestowal of blessing. Comp. ver. 4. 


TVEVMATLKH * 


1 These would not be possessions, which where else in the N. T., is surprising. In 


have reference to the heavenly life, but 
possessions which are to be found in heaven 
and are imparted to us. For émrovparios al- 
ways means “/o be found in heaven.” See 
Wetstein, I. p. 44%; Bleek on Heb. iii. 1, 
p. 375. Comp. ta émt tots ovpavois, ver. 10. 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Lu- 
ther, Castalio, Piscator, Vorstius, Homberg, 
Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Flatt, Bleek, 
and others. 

2 In opposition to Riickert, Harless, Ols- 
hausen. 

* The expression év tots érovpaviots, which 
occurs five times in this Epistle and no- 


the ease of any writer, no doubt, a phrase 
not incurrent use with him at other times 
may be accidentally and temporarily sug- 
gested to him, the use of which he involun- 
tarily appropriates and soon again as invol- 
untarily abandons ; yet it remains a sur- 
prising fact that the expression év Tots ézov- 
paviocs is not also used in the Epistle to the 
Colossians written at the same time, where 
there was no lack of opportunity (i. 5, 16, 
20) for the use of the expression, although 
the two Epistles exhibit so much verbal af- 
finity. 
4 Deza, Boyd, Weiss. 


CHAP, I, 4. 313 

Ver. 4. Further amplification of 6 etAoyhoac x.7.A. on to ver. 14. See the 
contents. — xaléc] even as, denotes that that eiAoyeiv has taken place in con- 
Sormity with the fact that, ete., and is consequently argumentative ; see on 
1 Cor. i. 6; John xiii. 84. — éFeAéEato yuac| He has chosen us (from the col- 
lective mass of men) for Himself (sibi). Comp. 1 Cor. i. 27; Rom. ix. 11, 
xi. 5, 7, 28; John xv. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 9 f. Entirely without reason Hof- 
mann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 2238, denies that éx2éyecba here has reference to 
others not chosen, and asserts that it applies only to that which we, in the ab- 
sence of election, should not have become. This is according to the very 
notion of the word quite impossible. "ExAéyec#ar alzoays has, and must ef logical 
necessity have, a reference to others, to whom the chosen would, without 
the é«doy7, still belong. Even in Acts vi. 5, xiii. 17; 1 Tim. v. 21; Ex. 
xvii. 25; Deut. iv. 37, it sets forth the distinctive separation from the 
remaining mass, just as also Christ, as one who is chosen out from all that 
is man, is called the éxAexréc of God (Luke ix. 35, xxiii. 35). — év ait@] for 
in nothing else and in no one else than in Christ, whose future work of re- 
demption God has foreknown and decreed from eternity (Acts xv. 18 ; Rom. 
Xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. i. 9; 1 Pet. 1. 20, al.), lay the ground, that the electing 
grace (Rom. xi. 5) chose us (comp. ill. 11) ; hence God had, as respected 
the subjects to be affected by the election, to deal, not in any arbitrary 
manner, but according to His zpéyvworc, ‘ foreknowledge,” of the same (prae- 
cognovit credituros, i.e., he foreknew who would believe). See on Rom. 
vill. 29. Christ is not, however, here conceived of as Himself chosen 
God, and we as included in Him (év ait), as Hofmann, p. 229, thinks ; 
but, as the more precise explanation in ver. 5 shows, the divine act of our 
election has in Christ its determining ground, so that to us by this act there 
is assigned and allotted no other than the salvation to be gained through 
Christ (who in the fulness of the times was out of His pre-existence to be 
sent as Incarnate and was to accomplish the work of salvation). Apart from 
this connection of the divine, election with Christ we should not be chosen ; 
but in Christ lay for God the causa meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” of our 
election.’ The reference of éy ai7 to God? is to be rejected on account of 
the utter superfluousness of this definition, and on account of the preceding 
év XptotG. — rpd KataBorjc xdopuov] thus before all time, already in eternity. 
Comp: Col. i. 15 ff. ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Matt. xxv. 34; also 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; 
2 Tim. i. 9. The expression is nowhere else found in Paul ; but see Matt. 
xii. 35 ; Luke xi. 50 ; John xvii. 24; Heb. iv. 3; 1 Pet. i. 20; Rev. xiii. 
8. [See NotelV., p. 351. ]— elvac jude dyiove x.t.4.] Infinitive of the design: in 
order that we should be, etc.? The predicates adyzoc and auopoc (blameless, Herod, 


1 Beyschlag (Christol. d. N. T. p. 141) finds 
in ev a’tm the thought, ‘‘ that the divinely 
conceived prototypes of perfected believers 
are from eternity posited by God in the One 
Prototype of humanity acceptable unto 
Him, as the countless multiplications of 

_ the same, to be thereupon brought through 
the historically realized One Prototype to 
their realization and perfection.” In op- 


position to this view we may simply urge 
the context, according to which év aire de- 
notes Christ as the personal ground of the 
éxAoyn made before all time, in so far as He, 
as Reconciler, is the bearer of the divine grace, 
vv. 6, 7. 

2 Al. Morus, Holzhausen: with Himself, 
in His heart. 

3 See Winer, p. 298 f. 


314 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


ii. 177 ; Theoc. xviii. 25) exhaust the conception positively and negatively.’ 
It is not, however, to be explained of the holiness conditioned by morality 
and virtue,? in which case reservations on account of human imperfection are 
often arbitrarily inserted, nor is it referred, as by Riickert, to the zdeal point 
of view of the apostle ; but rather of the holiness and blamelessness brought 
about through the atoning death of Christ by means of the dixacooivy Ocov 
thereby attained (Rom. iii. 21 ff., v. 1 ff., viii. 1, 33 ff ; 1 Cor. vi. 11; 
Heb. x. 10, 14, 29), in favor of which the very ¢iva: (not yivecfar) and the 
whole context are decisive (vv. 5, 6, 7). We may add that, if the emphasis 
with which our Epistle brings into prominence the holiness of the Church 
(comp. v. 27) is to be held as betraying the standpoint of the second cen- 
tury,® for which especial reference is made to iii. 10, 31, with equal reason 
the like suspicion may be thrown even on the most fully acknowledged 
Epistles (such as the Epistles to the Corinthians). [See Note V., p. 351 seq. | 
—xarevoriov abtov| before God’s eyes, judice Deo (Col. ii. 14 ; Rom. iii. 20, iv. 
5). It is God’s judgment, which has made the reconciled holy and blameless, 
and that by imputation of faith unto righteousness ; thereupon He gives to 
them every cbAoyia rvevuatixh, ver. 8. The reference of airé¢ successively 
recurring to different subjects cannot surprise us ;* and so it is not to be writ- 
ten abrov (as Harless still does), but airot, from the standpoint of the author. *® 
—éy ayary] is attached by many to ver. 4, so that it is connected either 
with éAéEaro,° but in how isolated and awkward a way ! or with eiva: jac 
dyiove «.7.A.,7 80 that év aydry would be the ground, or rather the element 
(evangelit 7d av, ‘‘all of the gospel,” says Grotius, ‘‘ lies in love”), of the 
holiness and blamelessness. But this is not compatible with the correct ex- 
planation of dyiove cat audpovc, asa state brought about by the iracthpiov of 
Christ, according to which, not év aydry, but év ricrer, would have been a 
definition of the element of holiness in keeping with the context. Hence 
the connection with zpoopicac, ver. 5, remains as the only correct one.” The 
only one of the objections made to this view which is plausible is that of 
Matthies and Meier, that the following xara ray ebdoxiay Tov OeAnudto¢ avTou 
would render the preceding év dydryin this connection superfluous. But see 
on ver. 5. 

Ver. 5. Love was the disposition of God, in which He through this our 
election predestined us to viobecia. Hence this divine motive is prefixed 
with emphasis, quite in keeping with the character of ascription of praise 


YComp. Plut. Pericl. p. 178 D: Bids .. . 
ka@apos Kal auiavtos, and see on Col. i. 22; 
Eph. v. 27. 

2 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Pisca- 
tor, Grotius, Calixtus, and many others, in- 
cluding Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, Meier, 
Schenkel. 

3 See Schwegler, in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, 
p. 382. 

4 Winer, p. 135. 

5 Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 276; Kiihner, 
ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 49. 

® Oecumenius, Thomas, Flacius, Olearius, 


Baumgarten, Flatt, and others. 

7 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Lu- 
ther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Gro- 
tius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others, including 
Riickert,—but with hesitation,—Matthies, 
Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius. 

8 So the Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Augustine, Estius (but with 
hesitation), Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae, 
Koppe, and others, including Lachmann, 
Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Tischendorf, 
Schenkel, Bleek. 


CHAP. I., 5. 315 
marking the discourse. Consequently: in that He in love predestined us. 
Homberg has indeed conceived the relation of the time of rpoopicag to 
é£eAéEato as : ‘‘ postquam nos praedestinavit adoptandos, elegit etiam nos, ut 
simus sancti,” ‘‘ after he predestinated us for adoption, he elected us to be 
holy;” but the usual view correctly conceives zpoopicac as coincident in 
point of time, and accomplished simultaneously with é&eéfaro, so that it is 
regarded as the modus, ‘‘ mode,” of the latter (see on yrupicac, ver. 9). For 
the predestination (the rpoopifew) is never elsewhere distinguished from the 
election as something preceding it ; it rather substantially coincides with it 
(hence at Rom. viii. 29 only the expression zpodpice is used, while in viii. 33 
only ixdexroi are mentioned), and only the zpéyvwoi, ‘‘ foreknowledge,” is 
prior, Rom. l.c.1_ It is, we may add, purely arbitrary to distinguish é£e2é£aro 
and zpoopicac, so that the former should apply to individuals, the latter to the 
whole.* Both verbs have in fact the same objects (jac, which denotes the 
persons) ; see on Rom. viii. 29. [See Note VI., p. 352.]— The zxpo in 
mpoopicac, ‘‘ beforehand,” points to the future realization. Certainly the predes- 
tination has taken place before the creation of the world (ver. 4) ; but this is 
not expressed by zpo, which rather looks always towards the future setting 
in of the thing predestined. See Rom. viii. 29 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. i. 11; 
Acts iv. 28 ; Heliod. p. 298, 14, p. 266, 15 ; Sopater in Walz, Rhet. V. 
p- 152, 20. — ic vioteciav dia "Incov Xpiorod eic aitév| are to be taken closely 
together : unto adoption through Jesus Christ in reference to Him,—that is, 
He has destined us to stand in the relation of those assumed as children through 
mediation of Jesus Christ to Him (to God). Comp. Rom. viii. 29. That 
viobecia 18 nowhere merely childship,* but adoption,* see on Rom. vii. 15 ; 
Gal. iv. 5. viofecia is never predicated of Christ Himself ; for He is the 
born Son of God (Rom. vill. 3; Gal. iv. 4), who procured for His own the 
assumption into the place of children (whereby they became de jure His 
brethren, Rom. viii. 29). The pre-eminence of Christ is therefore essential, 
not merely prototypal, as of the head of humanity ;° He is the povoyevije. 
Through adoption believers have passed out (comp. Rom. vii. 24 f.) of their 
natural state, in which by sin they were liable to the wrath of God (ii. 3), 
and have entered into the state of reconciliation, in which, through the 
mediation of the reconciling death of Christ (vv. 6, 7), by means of the 
faith in it which was counted to them for righteousness (Gal. iii. 26 ; Rom. 
iv. 5, 23 f.) they have forgiveness of sins, and are heirs of the Messianic 
blessedness (ver. 14; Gal. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 10, 11, 17), as a guarantee of 
which the Holy Spirit is given to them (ver. 14 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; Rom. viii. 16).— 
cic avtév| does not apply to Christ,® since Christ is mediator of the adoption, 


1Comp. Lampsing, Pauli de praedestinat. 
decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 70. See on this 
use of the aorist participle, Hermann, ad 
Viger. p. (74; Bernhardy, p. 883; Winer, 
p. 321. 

2 Schenkel. 

3 As Meier and Bleek still take it here, 
following Usteri. 

4Even the old theocratic vio@ecia was 


adoption ; for the Jews were as such, and 
not as men generally, the chosen and pecu- 
liar people to whom the Messiah was prom- 
ised. See on Rom. ix. 4. 

5JIn opposition to Beyschlag, Chrisiol. d. 
ANF FE 50s ZAI 

6 Anselm, Thomas, Castalio, Vorstius, 
Menochius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others, 
including de Wette. 


316 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


and this is a relation to God. This simple sense of reference toward is to be 
maintained, and we must not introduce either ad gloriam gratiae suae, ‘‘ to 
the glory of his grace,” ’ or ‘ bringing our race ei¢ avrov.”* At varianee with 
linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, and Calixtus take it for év éav76, and dis- 
cover in it the independence of the divine rpoop:ouéc ; and Grotius, Wolf, 
Baumgarten, Koppe, Holzhausen, Meier hold it as equivalent to sibi, At 
himself (‘Cas children, who rightly belong to Him as His own,” Meier). 
Comp. also on Col. i. 20. — We may add that here, too, we must not write® 
airéy, but airév. [See Note VIL. p. 352.] Comp. above on karevoriov 
abrov. —Kata tyv evdokiav Tov OeAjuatog avtov (not atrov) : conformably to the 
pleasure of His will, just as it was the purpose of His will. Comp. Matt. x1. 
26; Luke x. 21. So Vulgate, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, Flatt, and others, 
including Riickert, de Wette, Bleek. It may also signify : according to 
the benevolence of His will.4 But this notion is already and more strongly 
contained in éy dyaz7y ; and the element which is here meant, of free self- 
determination, independent of all human desert, as regulative of the zpoopi- 
tev, is clearly pointed to in the parallel by jv rpoéGero év aitG. Comp. also 
Vier leew Oniurnreste: 9: 


Remarx.—Predestination is not made dependent on any sort of causa 
meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” on the part of man (comp. ver. 11), but is simply 
an act of free divine kindness, whose determination has its causa impulsiva, 
‘‘impelling cause,” only in Christ ; so that, in the case of the predestined sub- 
jects, faith is set forth as the causa apprehendens, ‘‘ apprehending cause,” of the 
salvation destined for them kata rpéyveow (Rom, villi. 29) ; and with this Rom. 
ix., when rightly apprehended, agrees. The conditions mentally supplied by 
expositors (as e.g., Grotius, who finds in our passage ‘‘decretum ejus, quod 
Deus facere vult, si et homines faciant quod debent,”’ ‘‘ his decree that God wishes 
to act, provided men also do what they ought; comp. already Jerome) remove 
the relation out of the sphere of the divine eiJoxia Tov OeAnuatog into that of 
dependence on human self-choice, and consequently into the domain of the 
accidental. The notion of absolute decree, however, breaks down before the 
mpoyvwcic as the necessary premiss of the divine éxAoy7—a premiss, which 
doubtless involves the necessity of morally restricting the truncus aut lapis, 
block or ‘‘stone,’’ of the Formula Concordiae (comp. Luthardt, Lehre vom freien 
Willen, p. 272). 


Ver. 6. As love was the disposition serving as motive for the divine predesti- 
nation (ver. 5), so is the glorifying of the divine love (which, however, is 
here designated in accordance with its distinctive peculiarity, because it 
refers to sinners, ii. 1 ff., as grace) its divinely conceived ultimate aim, 
not, as Grotius would have it, consequens aliud, ‘‘ something consequent.” 
Comp. 2 Cor. i. 203 Phil. i. 11. —eic éravov d6En¢ tHe yapitog abrow (not 
aitov) means neither to the glorious praise of His grace,‘ nor to the praise of 


1 Piscator ; comp. Schenkel. 4See, generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. 

2 Theophylact. p. 369 ff. So Harless, Olshausen, Baumgar- 

3 With Beza, Stephanus, Mill, Griesbach, ten-Crusius, following older expositors. 
Knapp, Meier, and others. 5 Grotius, Estius. 


CHAP: 1.53% 317 


His glorious grace,! the one of which is just as arbitrary as the other ; but : 
to the praise of the glory of His grace. 'The quality of the grace, its glory— 
its greatness laudably evincing itself—is brought into prominence as the 
object of the praise to be bestowed on it. Bengel already in his day aptly 
distinguished the notions ; ‘‘ Primum nascitur laus gratiae,” ver. 7, ‘‘ inde 
laus gloriae,” ‘‘the praise of grace arises first, then the praise of glory.”— 
d6Ene without the article may not surprise us on account of the genitival defi- 
nition that follows. See Winer, p. 118 f. — 7 éyapirwoev judg év 7H Hyar. | 
7¢ is attracted by the preceding r7¢ ydprtoc,* instead of 7.4 Xapitdw Means: 
gratia aliquem afficere, ‘‘to treat any one with grace ;” and, according as 
the ydpic is conceived of subjectively as love-worthiness, or objectively as the 
divine grace, the sense may either be : to make love-worthy, as Chrysostom ® 
and his followers,® Cornelius & Lapide, and many Roman Catholics,’ have 
taken it, understanding thereby not merely the reconciliation, but also the 
positive sanctifying, the justitia inhaerens, ‘‘ inherent righteousness ;” or : 
to grant grace (as it is taken usually). In the former sense,* the word occurs, 
Niceph. Prog. ii. 2 ; Symm. Ps. xvii. 28 ; Ecclus. xviii. 17; also Ecclus. 
ix. 8 in Cod. A ; and Clem. Alex. Pued. ii. 11 ; in the latter sense, in Luke 
1.28 ; Test. XII. Patr. p. 698. The latter is here decidedly correct, since 
the preceding ric yapitoc, especially with 7c as the reading, permits no devi- 
ation from that meaning, just as ver. 7 sets forth simply the work of pardon- 
ing grace. — év TO nyatnuévw| Christ as the vid¢e r7¢ ayarne abrov, ‘‘ the son of 
his love,” Col. i. 18 (comp. Matt. iii. 17), is car’ é&oy7, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the 
beloved of God, and in Him has God shown us grace, 7.e., in the fact that He 
gave Him up to death for us (ver. 7), He has brought home to us His grace. 
Comp. ii. 18 ; Rom. viii. 39 ; 2 Cor. v.19. The designation of Christ by 
6 yyarhuwevoc Makes us feel the greatness of the divine grace. Comp. Rom. 
Vill, 62, v. 8 ff. ; John iii. 16; 1 Johniv. 9 f. 

Ver. 7. More precise elucidation, on the basis of experience (éyouev), of 
what had just been said, éyapir. quae év TO Hyar. —év 6] so that in Him our 
possession of the redemption has its ground. He it is, without whose per- 
son and work we should not have been redeemed ; ywpi¢ Xpiorov (ii. 12), no 
arodttpwore. Comp. Rom. iii. 24. The relative has, as is often the case,° 
argumentative significance. Comp. here especially iii. 12. — rv aroatbrpwow] 
the redemption, namely, from God’s wrath and penalties, which before our 
entrance into faith we had incurred through sin (Rom. i. 18, iii. 23, v. 5 ff., 
vii. 7 ff. ; Eph. ii. 3, v. 6, al.), as those who were under the dominion of 


1 Luther, Castalio, Beza, and most expos- 5 Chrysostom says: Just as if one were 
itors, including Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Holz- to make a sick or famished man into a 
hausen, Meier. beautiful youth, so has God made our soul 

2 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 53 f.; Held, ad beautiful and love-worthy for the angels 
Timol. p. 368. and all saints and for Himself. 

3 xapiv xaptrovv is conceived of as ayamnv § Comp. also Luther. 
ayarav, ii. 4; John xvii. 26; comp. Dem. 7 Including Bisping. 

306, 28: xapitas xapigeaOar. 8 See Wetstein, I. p. 651. 
4 Comp. iv.1; and see on 2 Cor. i. 4; Hom. ® See, generally, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phil. 


Zl. xxii. 649; Arist. Pl. 1044: ts bBpeos fs p. 195 f.; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. Il. p. 371. 
UBpiGopa, 


318 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


the devil (Col. i. 18; Acts xxvi. 18). The purchase-price (1 Cor. vi. 20, 
vii. 23 ; Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45) through which Christ, in voluntary 
obedience to God’s gracious counsel, accomplished this azoAtiTpworc, was His 
blood, which He shed as an iAaoripuov, ‘‘ a propitiation,” for the benefit of men 
(Rom. iii. 25, v. 8, 9 ; 2 Cor. v. 21; Col. i. 21, 1. 13 f.). On arodbrpaorc, 
as the effect of the atoning ‘death, in which case the blood of Christ is 
always conceived of as the purchase-price, see Rom. 111. 24. —6ca rod aiparoc 
avtov| by means of His blood, a more precise definition of the preceding év @. 
Paul might have written év 76 aiware abrod (11. 13) ; but he in general prefers 
an interchange of prepositions (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 11 ; Rom. iii. 30; Gal. ii. 
16 ; Philem. 5), to which he was here specially led by his epexegetic pur- 
pose (comp. ili. 12 ; 1 Thess. ili. 7). — rv ddeow tov tapatTwudtor] apposi- 
tion to tiv axoditpworr, the essence of which is the forgiveness of sins obtained 
on account of the death of Christ. As to the distinction between rapecic 
(Rom. iii. 25) and ddeore (used by Paul also in Col. i. 14), see on Rom. iii. 
25. —.1év rapartwouatwv denotes always the actual individual sins (ii. 1 ff. ; 
and see on Rom. v. 20) ; hence Paul has not mentally included a forgive- 
ness of inborn sinfulness.’ [See Note VIII., p. 352.]—kxara rév rAovrov rie 
yapitoc avtow] is not to be resolved into an adjective (‘‘ gratia liberaiissima, ” 
‘by his most liberal grace,” Koppe) ; but the riches, i.e., the great fulness,* 
of the divine grace is that, in consequence of which we have in Christ the 
redemption. It is to be noted that here, as well as in ver. 6, the reference 
to the divine grace serves to wind up one element of the discourse, and (by 
jc) to annex another. As to rAovroc tHe yapitoc (il. 7, ili. 16), see on Rom. 
ii. 4. Wemay add that Lachmann, Riickert, Tischendorf [Westcott and 
Hort] have the form 76 riAovroc, following A B D* E (?) 8* min., to which 
also F G fall to be added with the transcriber’s error tov rAovroc ; and 
rightly.° 

Ver. 8. "He ézepiocevoer cic yuac] 7¢ stands by attraction (comp. ver. 6), 
not for 7,4 so that érepicc. would be intransitive, — for the attraction of the 
dative, rare even in classic authors,® is not found in the N. T., not even in 
the passages adduced by Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 247, — but for jv, so that 
éxepioc. is transitive (2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8; 1 Thess. ili. 12) : which He has 
made abundant, has shown in an exceedingly high degree (ap6évac éféyee, 
‘‘ungrudgingly shed,” Theophylact), toward us. If, with Calvin and 
Beza,° we should not assume any attraction at all, but should take the geni- 
tive as at Luke xv. 17, there would result the sense, unsuitable to what 
follows (yrwpicag x.t.A.) : of which He had superabundance towards us. —év 
radon cogia Kai gpovgcer] is not’ to be attached to yrwpicac, because it would 
thus, like éy aydry in ver. 5, denote the attribute of God operative in the 
yvepiferv, Which, on account of acy (see below), is not admissible. If, 


2 Olshausen. 5 Kriiger, Gramm. 51. 10. 8, and Grammat. 
2 Codex 17 has 70 7A7 80s. Unters. III. p. 274 f. 
3 See on 2 Cor. viii. 2, Remark; and see ® Comp. also Holzhausen. 

Winer, p. 64. 7 With Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, 


4 Camerarius, Calvin, Piscator, Erasmus, Homberg, Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, 
Schmid. Griesbach, Koppe, Holzhausen, Scholz. 


CHAP +i, Os 319 


again, we should, with Chrysostom,' regard it as the state of men brought 
about by yvupicac x.7.4., this would be forced, and, as concerns the sense, 
there might be urged against it the circumstance that, in the making known 
of the divine mystery, Paul had to set forth, not the divine display of 
grace in itself (this was given in the work of redemption, vv. 6, 7), but the 
display of grace as revealed. Hence it was necessary that there should be 
added to jc éxepioc. eic ju. a definition, and this is év rdcy cod. x. dpov.: 
which he has displayed abundantly towards us by every kind of wisdom and dis- 
cernment (with which He endowed us, comp. Col. i. 9), in that He made 
known to us, etc. Observe here withal the elimaz, in which, rising from 
the simple je éyapirwoev juac, ver. 6, the apostle now, at this further display 
of grace, says : 7¢ ézepicoevoev eic judc. Riickert,? although connecting it 
with jc érepioc. ele ju., incorrectly holds the divine wisdom to be meant, 
and takes the sense to be, that God has with highest wisdom and discern- 
ment dispensed His grace over us. Not only would this introduce here 
something remote from the point,—since in the whole context Paul is com- 
mending only grace as such, and not any other attribute along with it,—but 
the words themselves are opposed to it, not indeed by @povjce: in itself, 
which * might be used also of God (1 Kings iii. 28 ; Prov. iii. 19 ; Jer. x. 
12), but certainly by cdc. For raca cogia does not mean summa sapientia, 
‘‘the highest wisdom,” but every kind of wisdom, which, according to a 
popular mode of expression, like our ‘‘all possible wisdom,” * can be said 
only of men. The rodrvroikcidog copia, ill. 10, is not analogous,® but 
denotes the absolute wisdom according to its manifold modes of manifesta- 
tion.* [See Winer, § 18: 4] —xai ¢povgce] Comp. 1 Kings iv. 29: éédoxe 
Kbpiog dpévnow TO Larwuov kai cogiav ToAAgv 3 Dan. li. 21: dove cogiay roic 
Gogolg Kai gpdvycw Toic eidéce obveoww 3 Joseph. Antt. ii. 5. 7, vill. 7.5. &pd- 
vyowe is an aptitude, which proceeds from wisdom (7 dé cogia avdpi tikred 
épévyowv, Prov. x. 23), in connection with which the distinction is to be 
noted, that cogia is the general notion” which embraces the collective activity 
of the mind as directed to divine aims only to be achieved by moral means 
(comp. on Col. i. 9) ; whereas ¢pévycre denotes the more special notion of 
the morally determined intelligence, the insight of practical reason regulating 
the dispositions érorjun ayafov kai xaxov, ‘‘ understanding of good and evil,” 
Plato, Def. p. 411 D 5 suc aAnfije pera Adyou mpaxtiKy rept Ta avOpdrw dyad x. 
xaxa, ‘* A true practical habit exercised by the reason with respect to things 
good and evil to man,” Arist. Hth. vi. 5. 4). See, especially, also Cic. Off. 
1. 43. Comp. on gpévyorc, which Paul has not elsewhere, Luke i. 17 ; Beck, 
bibl. Seelenl. p. 62. 

Ver. 9. In that He has made known to us the mystery of His will. The 
aorist participle signifies an action coincident and completed at the same 
time with érepico. See oni. 5. —zjuiv] applies, as in the whole connection, 


1 Comp. Michaelis and others. >In opposition to de Wette. 
2Comp. Jerome, Castalio, de Wette, and § [See Winer, § 18: 4.] 

others. T émvaT7py Ociwy Te Kal avOpwrivwv mpayj.a- 
3 In opposition to Harless and Schenkel. tov, “ understanding of divine as well as of 


4 Theile, ad Jacob. p. 7. * human things,” Sext. Emp. adv. phys. i. 13. 


320 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


to Christians generally ; but in this case the extraordinary kinds of making 
known, which individuals among them had experienced (such as Paul him- 
self, who was instructed 6? droxadiyswc, Ui. 3; Gal. i. 12), are left out of 
account. —7d pvorhp. Tov OeAgu. aitov] tov OeAju. is an objective genitive. 
And the mystery with which the divine will is occupied, is the counsel of re- 
demption accomplished through Christ, not in so far asit is in itself incompre- 
hensible for the understanding, but in so far as, while formed from eternity, 
it was until the announcement of the gospel hidden in God, and veiled and 
unknown to men. See Rom. xvi. 25 f. ; Eph. iii. 4 f., 9, vi. 19; Col. 1. 
26. By the prophets the mystery was not disclosed, but the disclosure of 
it was merely predicted ; here atthe proclamation of the gospel the prophetic 
predictions became the means of its being disclosed, Rom. xvi. 25 f. — kara 
tiv evdox. avtov] belongs not to 7d vor. Tov bed. ait.,' in which case it would 
stand in a tautologic relation to tov 6eA. ait., but rather to yrwpiocac x.T.A., 
stating that God has accomplished the making known in pursuance of His 
Sree self-determination. Comp. on ver. 5. — iv rpoébero év abt] would be in 
itself redundant, but serves for the attaching of that which follows ; hence 
no comma is to be placed after ai7é. It is not, however, to be written as 
uiTo,”? since here the airéc cannot appear as the third person, as would be 
the case if the text had run in some such form as kata rv rodfeow avrov, and 
as was previously the case with the thrice occurring airov. If ai7 were to 
be read, a subject different from God would be meant ; as, indeed, Chry- 
sostom and his successors, as well as Luther, Calovius, Bengel, and others, 
in reality understood it of Christ, although the latter only comes in again 
at ver. 10, and that by name. — zpoéOero] set before Himself (Rom. i. 18), 
purposed (namely, to accomplish it) in Himself, i.e., in His heart (anthropo- 
pathic designation). This purpose, too (mpééecic, ver. 11), is to be con- 
ceived as formed before the creation of the world ; without this idea, 
however, being expressed by po, which is not even to be taken tempo- 
rally, but locally (to set before oneself), comp. on rpoyerpifoua, Acts. li. 20. 
There is incorrectness, for the very reason that év ait¢ does not apply to 
Christ, in the translation of Luther (comp. Vulgate) : ‘‘ and has brought 
Sorth (herfiirgebracht| the same by Him,” though zpoé#. in itself might 
have this meaning. See on Rom. iii. 25. 

Ver. 10. Eic oixovopiav tov rAnpou. tev Karp. | Unto the dispensation of the ful- 
Jilling of the times, belongs not to yvwpicac,* but to the immediately preceding 
jv mpoélero év aitG, Which is inserted solely with a view to attach to it eic¢ 
oixov. k.T.A. ; and eic does not stand for év,* but denotes what God in form- 
ing that purpose had in view, and is thus telic : with a design to.° With the 
temporal rendering, usque ad,® we should have to take zpoéfero in a pregnant 
sense, and to supply mentally : ‘‘consilio secretum et abditum esse voluit,” 
‘‘He wished it to be secret and concealed in his counsel,” 7 which, however, 


1 Bleek. Piscator, and others. 
2 As by Lachmann, Harless, Tischendorf 5 [See Winer, § 49.] 

[Westcott and Hort, Eng. Rey. Version]. 6 Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, Estius, Er. 
3 Bengel. Schmid, Michael., and others. 


4 Vulgate and several Fathers, also Beza, 7 Erasmus. Paraphr. 


CHAP. 1., 103 B21 
with the former explanation is superfluous, and hence is arbitrary here, 
although it would in itself be admissible (Winer, p. 577). — oixovoyia} house- 
management (Luke xvi. 2), used also in the ethico-theocratic sense (1 Tim. 
i. 4), and specially of the functions of the apostolic office (1 Cor. ix. 17 ; 
Col. i. 25), here signifies regulation, disposition, arrangement in general, in 
which case the conception of an oixovéuo¢ has receded into the background.’ 
— The rAfpopa rev Karpov, id quo impleta sunt tempora, ‘‘ that wherein times 
are fulfilled” (comp. on iii. 19) is not in substance different from 76 rAqpapya 
Tov ypévov, Gal. iv. 4 ; nevertheless, in our passage the pre-Messianic period 
running on from the beginning is conceived of not as unity, as at Gal. l.c., 
but according to its different sections of time marked off by different epochs, 
the last of which closes with the setting in of the Messianic work of redemp- 
tion, and which thus with this setting in become full (like a measure), so 
that nothing more is lacking to make up the time as a whole, of which they are 
the parts. This tA/paua is consequently not, in general, tempus justum, ‘‘ the 
right time,” ? but the fulness of the times, i.e.,that point of time, by the setting 
in of which the pre-Messianic ages are made full,* that is, are closed as com- 
plete.* Fritzsche ° conceives it otherwise, holding that 76 rAjpwua is plenitas, 
“fulness,” the abstract of wA/pyc, hence 7A. 7. x. plenum tempus, ‘‘ the full 
time,” of rAnpecc kacpot. But while rA7jpoua doubtless signifies zmpletio, ‘‘ ful- 
filling,” like wAjpwor, in Ezek. v. 2; Dan. x. 3 ; Soph. Trach. 1203 ; Eurip, 
Tro. 824, it never denotes the being full. — Now, in what way is the genitive- 
relation oixovouia tov xAnpauatoc to be understood? A genitive of the object ® 
Tov TAnpou cannot be, inasmuch as it may doubtless be said of the wA/pwua 
TOV Kap. AS a point of time fixed by God : dé comes (Gal. iv. 4), but not : i 
4s arranged, oixovoueira. Harless takes the genitive as eperegetic. But a 
point of time (xAjp. tr. karp.) cannot logically be an appositional more pre- 
cise definition of a fact (oixovowia). The genitive is rightly taken as express- 
ing the characteristic (temporal) peculiarity, as by Calovius : ‘‘ dispensatio 
propria plenitudini temporum,” ‘‘the dispensation peculiar to the fulness 
of the times.” Comp. Riickert. Just as kpiow peyddAnc juépac, Jude 6. 
Hence : with a view to the dispensation to be established at the setting in of the 
Sulness of the times. 
Tov vidv avrov, ‘‘ when the fulness of the time came God sent forth his Son,” 
Gal. /.c., and on His emergence rerAjpwrar & Karpéc, ‘‘ the time is fulfilled,” 
Marki. 15. There was no need that the article should stand before oixov. 
just because of the complete definition contained in the following genitive. 


For, ére 7A0e 76 TAHpwua Tov yodvov, éaréaTecdAev 6 Odc 


1 Comp. iii. 2; Ken. Cy7. v. 3. 25; Plut. 
Pomp. 50 ; frequently in Polyb. (see Schweig- 
haeuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 402; comp. also 
2 Mace. ili. 14; 3 Macc. iii. 2; Act. Thom. 57). 

2 Morus: at its time. 

3 The apostolic idea of the mAjpopna tev 
kaipav excludes the conception of a series 
of worlds without beginning or end (Rothe). 
See Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 170 ff. 

4Comp. Herod. iii. 22: oydaxovta 8 érea 
Cons mAjpwua avipt pakpotatov mpoxéerOar, 


al 


“eighty years are appointed as the longest 
fulness of life to man” (implementum vitae 
longissimum, 2.é., dongissimum tempus, quo 
impletur vita,‘ the longest fulness of life, 7.¢., 
the longest time in which life is fulfilled”), 
and see on Gal. iy. 4; Wetstein on Mark i. 
alley, 

5In Thesauri quo sacrae N. T. glossae 
illustr. specim., Rostock 1839, p. 25, and ad 
Rom. Il. p. 4738. 

®§ Menochius, Storr, Baumgarten-Crusius. 


B22 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Comp. on ver. 6. It would only be required, if we should have mentally to 
supply to oixovouiay a genitival definition, and thus to make it an independent 
idea, as is done by many,’ who explain it as administrationem gratiae, ‘‘an ad- 
ministration of grace,”—a view which is erroneous, just because a genitive 
already stands beside it, although oixovoyia tov rAnpmatoc Tov Kaipov, taken to- 
gether, is the Christian dispensation of grace. This genitival definition 
standing alongside of it also prevents us from taking, with Luther, ée¢ 
olkovoniav (se. Tov wvotypiov) as: ‘‘ that it should be preached ;” or from supply- 
ing, with Grotius and Estius,? rye eidoxiac avtotd with oixov., in neither of 
which cases would there be left any explanation of the genitive sense appli- 
cable to tov TAnpwuarog t. x. Quite erroneous, lastly, is the view of Storr, 
Opuse. I. p. 155, who is followed by Meier, that oixovouia row ramp. Tt. x. 8 
administratio eorum quae restant temporum, ‘‘the administration of those | 
times that remain.” For to take 7. Ap. 7. x. in the sense of religua tempo- 
ra, 1.€., novi foederis, ‘‘the remaining times, 7.e., of the new covenant,” is 
in the light of Gal. iv. 4, Mark i. 15, decidedly to misapprehend it. [See 
Note IX., p. 852 seq. ] — avaxedatadoacba ta ravta év TO Xptot@ | epexegetical 
infinitive, which gives information as to the actual contents of that oixovouia : 
(namely) again to gather up together, etc. Therein the arrangement designated 
by olxovouia 7. TA. 7. x. Was to consist. This connection is that which nat- 
urally suggests itself, and is more in keeping with the simple mode followed 
in the context of annexing the new portions of the discourse to what imme- 
diately precedes, than the connection with rpoééero,* or with 7d pvorhp. Tod 
fez. avtov.t We may add that Beza, Piscator, and others have taken eic¢ 
oikov. T. 7A. 7. k. Along with avaxedad. as one idea ; but ia that case the pre- 
ceding jv xpoéfero év ait@ must appear quite superfluous and aimless, and 
el¢ olkovou. K.T.A., by being prefixed to avaxegad., irrelevantly receives the main 
emphasis, which is not to be removed from dvaxegaA. — dvaxedadracdoacbat] 
kedadacov in the verb xedadacdw Means, as it does also in classical usage, chief 
thing, main point ;° hence xedaradw : summatim colligere, as in Thue. iii. 67. 
5, vi. 91. 6, vill. 53. 1; Quinctil. i. 6. Comp. ovyxedadAaovoba, Ken. Cyr. 
vill. 1. 15 ; Polyb. ili. 3. 1, 7, iv. 1. 9. Consequently dvaxedadaéw : swmmuia- 
tim recolligere, ‘‘recapitulate summarily,” which is said in Rom. xii. 9 of 
that which has been previously expressed singulatim, ‘‘ individually,” in sep- 
arate parts, but now is again gathcred up in one main point, so that at 
Rom. l.c. év rottw 76 Adyw denotes that main point in which the gathering 
up is contained. And here this main point of gathering up again, 
unifying all the parts, lies in Christ; hence the gathering up is not 
verbal, as in Rom. l.c., but real, as is distinctly apparent from the objects 
gathered up together, ra éri roic obpavoic x.7.A. It 1s to be observed withal, 
(1) that dvaxedada. does not designate Christ as xedaa7 — although He really 
is so (ver. 22)—so that it would be tantamount to tr piav Kedadqy ays, 





1 Wolf, Olshausen, and others. to indicate by the name ‘mystery;’ also 
2 Comp. Morus. Harless, comp. Olshausen, Schmid, 6200. 
3 Zachariae, Flatt, and others. Theol. II. p. 347, and others. 

4Beza: Paul is explaining guid mysterii 5 See Wetstein, ad Rom. xiii. 9. 


nomine significare voluerit, ‘* what he wanted 


CHAP: 7, 10: 323 
‘*to bring under one head,” but as xedaaAaiov, which is evident from the 
etymology ; (2) that we are not to bring in, with Grotius and Hammond, 
the conception of scattered warriors, or, with Camerarius, that of an arith- 
metical sum (kegdAavov, see Wetstein, /.c.), which must have been suggested 
by the context ; (3) that the force of the middle is the less to be overlooked, 
inasmuch as an act of government on God’s part is denoted : sibi summatim 
recolligere, ‘‘to gather again summarily for himself” ; (4) that we may not 
give up the meaning of ava, iterum, ‘‘ again,” * which points back toa state in 
which no separation as yet existed. This ava has had its just force already re- 
cognized by the Peshito and Vulgate (instaurare, ‘‘to restore”), as well as by 
Tertull. de Monog. 5 (ad initium reciprocare, ‘‘to go back to the beginning”’), * 
although kegaiaidé is overlooked by the former, and wrongly apprehended by 
the latter. See the more detailed discussion below. — ra révra] is referred by 
many (see below) merely to tnteliigent beings, or to men, which, according 
to a well-known use of the neuter, would be in itself admissible (Gal. iii. 
22), but would need to be suggested by the context. It is quite general : 
all created things and beings. Comp. vv. 22, 23. —ra én? tole ovpavoic Kai Ta 
éxt tHe yac\ that which is on the heavens and that which is on the earth. éxi roic 
ovpav. (see the critical remarks) is so conceived of that the heavens are the 
stations at which the things concerned are to be found.® Even in the classi- 
cal writers, we may add, prepositions occurring in close succession often 
vary their construction without any special design in it. As regards the 
real sense, ta éxi Toi¢ ovpav. is not to be arbitrarily limited either to the spirits 
in heaven generally,” or to the angels,* or to the blessed spirits of the pious men 
of the O. T.,° nor must we understand by it the Jews, and by ra éri tic yqc the 
Gentiles,” as, indeed, Koppe was able to bring out of it all mankind by de- 
claring heaven and earth to be a periphrasis for xécyoc ; but, entirely with- 
out restriction, all things and beings existent in the heavens and upon earth are 
meant, so that the preceding ra ravra is specialized in its two main divi- 
sions. Irenaeus” quite arbitrarily thought of all events which should have 
come to pass on earth or in heaven, and which God gathers up, é.e., brinys 
to their complete fulfilment, in Christ as in their goal.” But how far has 
God gathered together again all things, things heavenly and things earthly, 
in Christ ? Before the entrance of sin all created beings and things were 





1 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Calovius, Ben- 
gel, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Mat- 
thies, Meier, de Wette, and others. 

2 Winer, deverbor. cum praep. conj. in N. T. 
usu, III. p. 3 f. 

8 Tn opposition to Chrysostom, Castalio, 
and many others. : 

4Comp. Goth.: “aftra usfulljan” (again 
to fill up). 

® Comp. the well-known émi x@ovi (Hom. 
Wl. iii. 195, al.) 3 emt mvAnow CZ. iii. 149); émi 
amupye (1. vi. 431). 

§ See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.20. Comp. 
as to the local ¢xi with genitive and dative, 
é.g., Hom. 7. i. 486. 


7 Riickert, Meier. 

§ Chrysostom, Calvin, Cameron, Balduin, 
Grotius, Estius, Calovius, Bengel, Michaelis, 
Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius [Weiss], and others. 

® Beza, Piscator, Boyd, Wolf, Moldenhau- 
er, Flatt, and others. 

10 Locke, Schoettgen, Baumgarten, Tel- 
ler, Ernesti. 

11 Adv. Haer. iii. 18. 

12 Comp. Chrys.: 7a yap 5ta axpov xpovou 
oikovomovmEva avykehbadawwcato év 
Tovtéote cuvetene, ‘for the things long ad- 
ministered he gathered together in Christ, 
z.e., cut them short.”’ 


Xpiore, 


B24 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


undividedly united under God’s government ; all things in the world were 
normally combined into organic unity for God’s ends and in IJlis service. 
But through sin this original union and harmony was broken, first of all in 
heaven, where a part of the angels sinned and fell away from God ;* these 
formed, under Satan, the kingdom antagonistic to God, and upon earth 
brought about the fall of man (2 Cor. xi. 38), extended their sway 
farther and farther, and were even worshipped in the heathen idols 
(1 Cor. x. 20 f.). . With the fall of man there came to an end also 
the normal state of the non-intelligent «rio, ‘‘ creature” (Rom. viii. 
19 ff.) ; heaven and earth, which had become the scene of sin and of 
the demoniac kingdom (ii. 2, vi. 12), were destined by God to de- 
struction, in order that one day a new heaven and a new earth—-in which 
not sin any more, but moral righteousness shall dwell, and God shall be the 
all-determining power in all (1 Cor. xv. 28)—shall come imperishable (Rom. 
viii. 21) in its place (2 Pet. ill. 13). The redeeming work of Jesus Christ 
(comp. Col. i. 20) was designed to annul again this divided state in the 
universe, which had arisen through sin in heaven and upon earth, and to 
re-establish the unity of the kingdom of God in heaven and on earth ; so 
that this gathering together again should rest on, and have its foundations 
in, Christ as the central point of union and support, without which it could 
not emerge. Before the Parousia, it is true, this dvaxedaAaiware is still but 
in course of development ; for the devil is still with his demons ép toi¢ ézov- 
paviowe (vi. 12), is still fighting against the kingdom of God and holding 
sway over many ; many men reject Christ, and the «rics, ‘‘ creature,” longs 
after the renewal. But with the Parousia there sets in the full realization, 
which is the azoxatdoraocie ravTwr, ‘‘ restitution of all things” (Matt. xix. 28 ; 
Acts iii. 21 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ff.) ; when all antichristian natures and powers 
shall be rejected from heaven and earth, so that thereafter nothing 
in heaven or upon earth shall be excluded from this gathering together 
again.” Finally, the middle voice (sibi recolligere, ‘“‘to gather for him- 
selr”) has its warrant in the fact that God is the Sovereign (the head of 
Christ, 1 Cor. xi. 4 and iii. 23), who fulfils His will and aim by the gather- 
ing up again, etc. ; so that, when the avaxegadaiworg is completed by the 
victory over all antichristian powers, He resumes even the dominion com- 
mitted to the Son, and then God is the sole ruling principle (1 Cor, xv. 24, 
28). Our passage is accordingly so framed as to receive its historically ade- 
quate clucidation from the N. T., and especially from Paul himself ; and 
there is no reason for seeking to explain it from a later system of ideas, as 
Baur does,* who traces it to the underlying Gnostic idea, that all spiritual 
life which has issued from the supreme God must return to its original unity, 
and in that view the ‘‘ affected” expression ¢eic oixov. t. tAnp. tT. karp is held to 


1 For this falling away is the necessary p. 819 ff. On Jude6and 1 Tim. iii. 6, in which 
presupposition for the Satanic seduction of passages a reference has been wrongly 
our first parents, 1 John iii. 8-10 ; John viii. found to the first fall in the angelic world, 
44, where an oviginally evil nature of the see Huther. 
devil (Frommann, Hilgenfeld) is not to be 2 Comp. Photius in Oecumenius. 
thought of; see Hahn. Jheol. d. N. T. I. 3p, 424. 


CHAP) 1, 10, 325 


convey a covert allusion to the Gnostic pleroma of aeons and its economy. 
The ‘‘ genuinely Catholic consciousness” ? of the Epistle is just the genuinely 
apostolic one, necessarily rooted in Christ’s own word and work. The per- 
son of Christ is not presented ‘‘under the point of view of the metaphysical 
necessity of the process of the sclf-realizing idea,” * but under that of its 
actual history, as this was accomplished, in accordance with the counsel of 
the Father, by the free obedience of the Lord. 


Remark 1.—The illustration which Chrysostom has given for ra éx? Toi¢ 
ovpavotc kK. Ta Ext THC yi¢, from the conception of a house repaired (we dv rep) 
oliklag Tig eiot TA fev CaApa Ta O& ioxupa EXOVONG’ dvwKodduNoe THY OiKiav. . . ODTW 
Kal évradfa mavtag bro piav Hyaye Kepaayv, ‘as One would say of a house haying 
some things decayed and others strong: ‘He so rebuilt the house, and there 
brought all under one head’”’), has been again employed by Harless, whose 
view of the passage (approved by Schenkel) is that the apostle speaks thus, 
‘because the Lord and Creator of the whole body, of which heaven and earth are mem- 
bers, has in the restoration of the one member restored the whole body ; and inthis con- 
sists the greatest significance of the reconciliation, that it is not merely a restoration of 
the life of earth, but a bringing back of the harmony of the universe.”’ But in this 
way the words of the apostle are made withal to suggest merely the doing away 
of the contrast between heaven and earth (or, according to Schenkel’s tortuous 
metaphor, ‘‘ between the heavenly glorified centre of creation and the earthly, 
sin-troubled circumference of creation”), and there is conceded to the ra én? 
toi¢ ovpavoig merely an indirect participation in the avakesadaiworc, and the 
direct de facto operation of the Messianic oixovoyia on the heavenly world is set 
aside—which appears the less admissible, inasmuch as 7a éxi r. ovp. has the prec- 
edence. According to Paul, the heavenly world and the earthly world were to 
be atfected, the former as immediately and properly as the latter, by the avaxe- 
PaAdiwowg TOV TavTwy ; for the Satanic kingdom, for the destruction of which 
Christ came, and whose destruction was the condition of the avaxepadaiwcic, 
has its seat in the regions of heaven (vi. 12 ; comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. 
p. 343 ff.), and works in the vioi tij¢ aveMeiac (ii. 2) upon earth, so that in heaven 
and upon earth there exists no unity under God. 

Remark 2.—The doctrine of Restoration, according to which those who have 
continued unbelieving and the demons shall still ultimately attain to salvation, 
altogether opposed as it is to the N. T., finds no support in our passage, where 
(in opposition to Origen, Samuel Crell, and others), on the contrary, in the 
dvaxegur. k.7.A. there is obviously implied, from the general point of view occu- 
pied by Christian faith, the separation of unbelievers and of the demoniac 
powers, and their banishment into Gehenna ; so that the avaxedadaiwore is not 
meant of every single individual, but of the whole aggregate of heavenly and 
earthly things, which, after the antichristian individuals have been separated 
and consigned to hell, shall again in the renewed world be combined into unity 
under God, as once, before the entrance of sin, all things in heaven and on 
earth were combined into such unity. Hence Olshausen is wrongly of opin- 
ion that our passage (as well as Col. i, 20) is to be brought into harmony with 


1 See, on the other hand, Rabiger, Chris- p. 109. 
tol. Paulina, p. 55. 3 Baur, neulest. Theol. p. 264. 
2Baur, Christenth. d. drei erst. Jahrh. 


326 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


the general type of Scripture doctrine by laying stress in the infinitive aroxegad. 
upon the design of God ‘‘ which, in the instituting of a redemption endowed 
with infinite efficacy, aims at the restoration of universal harmony, at the bring- 
ing back of all that is lost.’’ Apart from the fact that avaxegad. is only an epexe- 
getical infinitive (see above), it is altogether opposed to Scripture to assume 
that the aim in redemption is the restoration of all that is lost, even of the 
devils. For those passages as to the universality of redemption, and sayings 
like 1 Pet. iv. 6, Phil. ii. 10 f., leave the constant teaching of the N. T. concern- 
ing everlasting perdition entirely untouched (comp. on Rom. vy. 18, xi. 32 ; 
Phil. ii. 10) ; and as regards the devils, the design of God in the economy of re- 
demption was to vanquish them (1 John iii. 8, and elsewhere ; 1 Cor. xy. 24 f.), 
and to deliver them up to the penalties already prepared for them of everlast- 
ing pain in hell (Matt. xxv. 41; Jude 6; 2 Pet. 11.4; Rev. xx. 1 f. ; comp. 
Bertholdt, Christol. p. 223). The restoration of the devils, as an impossibility 
in the case of spirits radically opposed to God, is not in the whole N. T. so 
much as thought of. The prince of this world is only judged. 

Remark 3.—Those who understand ra ézi roi¢ otp. specially of the angels (see 
above) have been driven—inasmuch as these pure spirits have no need of re- 
demption in the proper sense—to unbiblical expedients, such as the view of 
Calvin (comp. Boyd) : that the angels before the redemption were not extra per- 
iculum, ‘‘beyond danger,” but had through Christ attained ‘‘ primum ut perfecte 
et solide adhaereant Deo, deinde ut perpetuum statum retineant,” ‘‘ that they should 
perfectly and firmly cleave to God, and then to retain a perpetual estate’ (of 
all which the N. T. teaches nothing !) ; or that of Grotius : ‘‘antea inter angelos 
factiones erant et studia pro populis (Dan. x. 13!) .. . ea sustulit Christus, rea 
factus etiam angelorum, unum ex tot populis sibi populum colligens,” ‘* previously 
there were among the angels factions and devotion to the interests of public 
bodies (Dan. x. 13); these Christ removed, being made King of angels, collect- 
ing from so many peoples one for himself ;’’ or that of Augustine and Zeger, 
that the number of the angels, which had been diminished by the fall of some, 
was completed again by the elect from among men. Baur (comp. Zanchius), 
out of keeping with the notion of the dvaxegadaiworc, thought of the knowledge 
(iii. 10) and bliss (Luke xv. 10) of the angels as heightened by redemption. 
Others again (Chrysostom on Col. i. 20; Theophylact, Anselm, Cornelius & 
Lapide, Hunnius, Calovius, Bengel, et al.) have found the dvaxegadaiwore in the 
fact that the separation which sin had occasioned between the angels and sin- 
ful men was done away.! So also in substance Riickert : ‘‘ Originally and ac- 
cording to the will of God the whole world of spirits was to be one,... 
through like love and obedience towards the one God. . . . Sin did away with 
this relation, mankind became separated from God ; hence also of necessity 
the bond was broken, which linked them to the higher world of spirits. . . - 
Christ. . . is to unite mankind to Himself bya sacred bond, and thereby to bring 
them back to God, and by that very act also. . . to do away with the breach ; 
all is again to become one.’’ Comp. Meier, as also Bahr on Col. i. 20. But 
the apostle is in fact speaking of the reuniting not of the heavenly with the 
earthly, but of the heavenly and the earthly (comp. Remark 1) ; moreover, 


1In connection with this view it was Christ was, as to His divine nature, the head 
quite arbitrarily, and witha distinctionat of the angels, and as to His human nature, 
yariance with Scripture, assumed that the head of men. 


CHAP ie ailill; 327 
according to this explanation, the davakegaraiworc of the heavenly spirits with 
men would be the consequence of the expiation made for men by Christ, and 
thus Paul must logically have written: 7a ém tij¢ yig K. Ta Ent Tog odpavoic. 
[See Note X., p. 353.] 


Ver. 11. ’Ev ai7G] resumes with emphasis the éy Xpio7G,’ in order to attach 
thereto the following relative clause ;? hence before év aiv6 a comma is to be 
placed, and after it not a full stop, but only acomma.? Comp. on Col. i. 
20. —év @ cal éxAnpoOnuev| in whom (is the causal basis, that) we have also 
obtained the inheritance. «ai, in the sense of also actually introduces the ac- 
complishment corresponding to the preparation (which was expressed by jv 
mpoéOeTo év avT@ el¢ oikovouiay k.T.A.).4 It has reference to the thing, not to the 
persons, since otherwise it must have run kai 7jueic éxAnp., aS In ver. 13 ; hence 
the translation of the Vulgate : ‘‘in quo etiam nos,” etc., and others,* is in- 
correct. The subject is not the Jewish Christians,® because there is no antith- 
esis of jyueic and ipeic, ver. 13, but the Christians in general. 
means : we were made partakers of the xrjpoc, ‘‘ inheritance ” (Acts xxvi. 18 ; 
Col. i. 12), that is, of the possession of the Messianie kingdom, which before 
the Parousia is an ideal possession (ver. 14 ; Rom. viii. 24), and thereafter 
areal one. [See Note XI., p. 353.] The expression itself is to be explained 
in accordance with the ancient theocratic idea of the mon3 (Deut. iv. 
20, ix. 26, 29), which has been transferred from its original Palestinian 
reference (Matt. v. 5) to the kingdom of the Messiah, and thus raised 
to its higher Christian meaning (see on Gal. iii. 18) ; and the passive 
form of this word, which is not met with elsewhere in the N. T., is quite like 
dOovovpat, Svakovovpal, TioTevouar (see on Gal. iv. 20), since we find KAnpody revi 
used.” Others® have insisted on the signification of being chosen by lot 
(1 Sam. xiv. 41, 42 ; Herod. i. 94; Polyb. vi. 38. 2 ; Eurip. Jon, 416, al.), 
and have found as the reason for the use of the expression : ‘*‘ quia in ipsis 
electis nulla est causa, cur eligantur prae aliis,” ‘‘ because in the elect them- 
selves there is no cause why they should be elected in preference to others,” ® 
in which case, however, the conception of the accidental is held as excluded 
by the following zpoopic#. x.7.A.;*° but it may be urged against this view that, 
according to Paul, it is God’s gracious will alone that determines the éxioy7 
(ver. 5 ; Rom. ix. 16 ff.), not a @eia roxy, ‘‘ divine chance,” which would be 
implied in the ékAyp.; comp. Plato, Legg. vi. p. 759 C : kAypoiv ota th Oeia 
Toxn arodidévra, ‘‘thus to apportion one confiding in divine chance.” — 


ExAnpOOnwev 


Tpoopiobévrec x.7.A.| predestined, namely, to the KAypoc, according to the purpose 
of Him, who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will. The words 
are not be placed within a parenthesis, and ra révra is not to be limited to 


1 Herm. ad Viger. pp. 734, 735 ; Bernhardy, 
p. 289 f. 

2 Kiihner, IT. § 630, 5. 

3 So, too, Lachmann, Tischendorf. 

4See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132; Klotz, 
ad Devar. 636 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. 152. 

5 Including Erasmus, Paraphr., and Ro- 
senmiiller. 


6 Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, 
Meier, Harless, Schenkel, and others. 
7 Pind. Ol. viii. 19; Thue. vi. 42. 


8 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, 
Erasmus, Estius, de Wette, and Bleek 
[Cremer]. 

° Estius. 


10 See Chrysostom and Estius. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


what pertains to the economy of salvation,’ but God is designated as the all- 
working (of whom, consequently, the circumstances of the Messianic salva- 
tion can least of all be independent). Comp. ravepyéryc Zeic, ‘‘ all-effecting 
Zeus,” Aesch, Ag. 1486. But, as God is the all-working, so is His decree 
the ravroxparopixov Bobéanua, ‘‘ omnipotent purpose,” Clem. Cor. I. 8. — As to 
the distinction between Bovag and 6éAnua, comp. on Matt. 1.19. The former 
is the deliberate self-determination, the latter the activity of the will in gen- 
eral. 

Ver. 12. Causa jinalis, ‘‘the final cause,” of the predestination to the 
Messianic «Ajpoc :? in order that we might redound to the praise of His glory 
(actually, by our Messianic KAypovouia), we who have beforehand placed our 
hope on Christ,—we Jewish-Christians, to whom Christ even before His 
appearing was the object of their hope. Only now, namely, from ¢éi¢ 76 eivac 
qjuac onward, does Paul divide the subject of éAnpaé. and xpoopicbévtec, 
which embraced the Christians generally, into its two constituent parts, the 
Jewish- Christians, whom he characterizes by jjuac .. . Tove mponAmuxérac év 
T® Xpior@, and the Gentile- Christians, whose destination to the same final 
aim—namely, ei¢ rd evar cic éxarvoy x.t.A.—he dwells on afterward in vy. 
13, 14 (passing over to them by év © xai iueic), and hence ver. 14 concludes 
with a repetition of cic érarvov tio d6Ene aitov.* — uae] has emphasis, prepar- 
ing the way for the subsequent introduction of kai iueic. — rode rponArixérac | 
quippe qui, ‘‘as they who,” etc. On mpoearivew, to hope before, comp. Posei- 
dippus in Athen. ix. p. 877 C. The zpo does not transfer the hoping into 
the praescientia Dei, ‘‘foreknowledge of God,” * nor has it a reference to 
the later hoping of the Gentiles,’ since the hoping of the Gentiles is 
not subsequently expressed ; nor is rponAr. equivalent to the simple form,® 
which is not the case of any verb with zpo ; but it applies to the fact that 
the Jews had the Old Testament prophecies, and hence already before Christ 
set their hope upon the Messiah (Rom. iii. 2, ix. 4; Acts iii. 25, xxvi. 6 f., 
22, xxviii. 20, a/.). So, correctly, Zéckler takes it.? But de Wette, who ® 
denies the division—also unnoticed by Chrysostom and his successors— 
into Jewish and Gentile Christians (understanding jac, generally, of the 
Christians, and ieic, ver. 18, of the readers), takes zpo in xponAr. as : before 
Comp. Theophylact : xpiv 7 éxioty 6 wéAAwv aidv, ‘before the 
coming age impend.” But in this way the rpo would be without significanee, 
while, as taken by us, it is characteristic. It is incorrect, too, that ver. 13 
affirms nothing peculiar of the Gentile-Christians. As standing in contrast 





the Parousia. 


1 Piscator, Grotius. : 

2 Many others, including Flatt, Meier, 
Harless, have attached eis 70 civacto mpoopia A. 
(predestined, to be, etc.); but this is not 
only not in keeping with the analogous eis 
ératvoy k.7.A., VY.6 and 14, but also inappro- 
priate, because mpoopio9. did not yet refer 
specially to the Jewish-Christians. 

’ Thus what Paul dwells on in vy. 11-14 
may be summarized thus: ‘‘In Christ we 
have really become partakers of the Messi- 


anic salvation, to which we were predes- 
tined by God, in order that we Jewish- 
Christians, and also you Gentile-Christians, 
should redound to the praise of His glory.” 

4 Jerome. 

5 Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Boyd, Estius, 
Bengel, Michaelis, and others. 

6 Morus, Bretschneider. 

7 de vi ac notione vocab. édAmis, 1856, p. 32 f. 

8 Comp. Riickert, Holzhausen, Matthies, 
Bleek. 


CHAPS Dy has 329 


to the xpondrixérac eivac of the Jewish- Christians, what is said in ver. 13 serves 
precisely to characterize the Gentile-Christians. They, without having 
entertained that previous hope (ii. 12), have heard, believed, etc. — The 
usual construction, suggested of itself by the very sequence of the words, 
has been—after the example of Morus, Koppe, ed. 1, Flatt, and Matthies — 
departed from by Harless, followed by Olshausen, inasmuch as he regards 
eic éxacvov O6En¢ avTov as an inserted clause [inciswm] : ‘we who were predes- 
tined, etc., to be those—to the praise of His glory—who already before hoped in 
Christ.” Tn this way Paul would point to the reason, why the xAjpoc had 
first been assigned to the Jews. But (1) in that case é«Aypd6. and mpoopiob. 
must already have applied specially to the Jewish-Christians, which no 
reader could guess, and Paul, in order to his writing intelligibly, must have 
indicated, by putting it in some such way as: é& © jueic ExAnpoOnuer, ob 
mpoopiobévtec . . . €l¢ TO Elvar . . . Todvs MpoyArcKdrac x.T.A. As the passage 
actually stands, the reader could find the Jewish-Christians designated only 
at ver. 12, not previously. (2) ele érawov dé6En¢ aitov has, in accordance with 
the context (see ver. 14 ; comp. also ver. 6), by no means the character of 
an incidental insertion, but the stress of defining the ultimate aim, and that 
not in respect of a pre-Christian state, but of the Christian one. This, how- 
ever, only becomes suitably felt, when we read eic¢ 76 elvan juac eic Exawov 566 
aitov together. (3) The predestination of God (xpoopiofévrec) is in the connection 
related not to a pre-Christian state, such as, according to Harless, the eivac 
Tove TponAmiKéTrac év T. Xpiot@ would be, but to the realization of the Mes- 
sianic blessedness (ver. 5). Comp. Rom. viii. 29; 1 Cor. ii. 7; as 
also Acts iv. 28. Lastly, (4) the objections taken by Harless to the usual 
connection of the words are not tenable: For (a) the symmetry of the two 
corresponding sentences in form and thought depends on the fact that in the 
case of both sections, the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, the glorifying 
of God is brought into prominence as the final aim of their attaining to sal- 
vation, and hence ver. 14 also closes with ei¢ éravov rt. 06E. avtov. (0) The 
repeated mention of the predestination on God’s part to salvation is solemn, 
not redundant ; and the less so, inasmuch as the description of God as 
Ta TavtTa évepyovvtoc is added. (ce) The objection that we cannot tell 
why the apostle brings in that predestination only with regard to the xpoya 
nixérec, While yet it manifestly applies also to the dxotcavrec, is based on the 
- misunderstanding, according to which éxAypé#. and rpoopicf. are already 
restricted to the Jewish-Christians ; for the subject of these words is still the 
Christians without distinction, — Jewish and Gentile Christians, — so that 
the predestination of both the former and the latter is asserted. It is only at 
ver. 12 that the division of the subject begins, which is continued in 

Ver. 13, so that év 6 cai iueic leads over to the second constituent element 
(you Gentile-Christians).— As regards the construction, it is regarded by 
Wolf, Bengel, Morus, and others,’ including Riickert, Matthies, Holzhau- 
sen, de Wette, Bleek, Bisping, as anacoluthic ; the év 6 of the second half 
of the verse is held to resume the first. Incorrectly, since in the resumption 


1 Comp. already Jerome. 


330 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


kat tuei¢ would have been essential. As Paul has written the passage (xa? 
motevo.), there is added to what has previously been affirmed of the ipeic 
(axobcavtec), a new affirmation ; hence év ¢ x. wor. «.7.4. is the continuation, 
not the reswmption of the discourse. The verb after év ¢ «ai tyeic is there- 
fore to be supplied; not, however, #Azixare,’ since in fact the preceding 
mponanixédrac—which, besides, was only an appositional constituent element 
of the discourse—would yield zpoyArixate, Which is inapplicable to the 
Gentile-Christians ; nor yet éxAnpoOyre,” since éxAnpdOnuev, ver. 11, already 
embraced the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and with éi¢ 76 eivac jude «.7.A. 
a new portion of the development sets in. The right course is merely to 
supply mentally the substantive verb, in accordance with the current expres- 
sion év Xpioré eiva, to belong to Christ as the element of life, in which one 
exists. Hence: in whom also ye are. Thus Paul paves the way for his 
transition to the Gentile-Christians, in order, after first specifying how it 
was that they had become such (vv. 13, 14), finally to assert of them also 
the cic Exarvov tHe d6Eno aitow (ver. 14). — axotcavtec Tov Ady. THe aAnO.| after 
ye have heard the word (the preaching) of the truth ; for after this hearing 
there set in with them the év Xpior@ eivac. The truth xar’ é£oyqv, ‘‘ pre-emi- 
nently,” is the contents of the Aéyoc. But a contrast to the types and shadows 
of the O. T.,° or to heathen error,* is not implied in the context. Comp. 
Col. i. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 15. —76 evayy. r. cwrnp. bu.| descriptive apposition to 
Adyo¢e tic GAO. The genitive here also denotes the contents ; that which is 
made known in the gospel is the Messianic salvation. Harless takes both 
genitives as genitives appositionis, ‘‘of apposition,” inasmuch as the gospel 
is the truth and the cwrypia. The gospel, however, 7s not the salvation, but 
an exertion of the power of God, which leads to salvation (Rom. i. 16 ; 
1 Cor. i. 18) ; the analogous combinations, too, of 7d ebayy. with a genit. 
abstract., ‘‘an abstract genitive,” as rd evayy. tie ydapitoc T. Ocod (Acts xx. 
24), rH elphvyc (Eph. vi. 15), r7¢ BaccAciac, are opposed to the assumption of 
a genit. apposit., ‘‘ genitive of apposition.” Comp. on Marki. 1. Finally, 
the context also, by axotcavrec and moreicavtec, points not to what the doc- 
trine is, but to what it proclaims. Comp. Rom. x. 14. — év 6 kai mioteboavrec 
x.t.A.] A further stage of the setting forth how they became what they were, 
in order to reach its goal ei¢ éxawov tip¢ ddEn¢ aitov, ver. 14. Precisely with 
regard to the Gentile-Christians, who had previously been aloof from all 
theocratic connection (no zpoyArikétec év TO Xpioto), the apostle feels himself 
impelled not to be content with the simple ‘‘in whom also ye are, after ye 
have heard the Gospel,” but specially to bring into relief the sealing of the 
Holy Spirit. — év ©] is referred not merely by those who regard it as resump- 
tive (see above), but also by many others with Luther,*® to Christ ; but why 
should we pass over the nearest antecedent ? The «ai finds its reference, 


1 Erasmus in his version, Beza, Castalio, 3 Chrysostom. 

Calvin, Estius, and others. 4 Cornelius 4 Lapide, Baumgarten ; Gro- 
2 Erasmus, Paraphr. ; Piscator, Zanchius, tius thinks of both. 

Cornelius 4 Lapide, Boyd, Vorstius, Zach- 5 Including Harless, Meier, Olshausen, 


ariae, Koppe, and others, including Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel. 
Harless, Olshausen. 


CHARS iy, lies 331 
agreeably to the context, in the accession of the faith to the hearing (Rom. 
x. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 1). Hence év «is to be referred, with Castalio, Calvin, 
Beza, Erasmus Schmid, and others,’ to 76 evayyéAvov, and to be joined, with 
Castalio, to moteicavtec, not to éiodpayio#. (as usually), according to which 
miotevo. Would be superfluous,’ and the periodic flow of the discourse would 
be injuriously affected. Hence: in which ye, having become believers, were 
sealed through the Holy Spirit. As to mioretew év (Mark i. 15), see on Gal. 
ili. 26. — miorebcavrec| is not to be taken, with Harless, as contemporaneous 
with éodpay. (see on vv. 5, 9) ; but it contains that which was prior to the 
odpayitecOa. The order of conversion was : hearing, faith, baptism, reception 
of the Spirit. See Acts ii. 37, vill. 12, 17, xix. 5, 6; Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; Tit. 
iii. 5 f. ; Gal. ili. 2, iv. 6. Certainly even the becoming a believer is not 
the work of human self-determination (see Acts xvi. 14 ; Phil. i. 29 ; Rom. 
xii. 3 relates to the measure of faith of the baptized) ; yet this divine opera- 
tion is only preparatory, and the effusion of the Spirit, properly so called, 
ensued only after baptism :* hence water and Spirit (John iii. 5). — éodayio- 
Onre] were sealed, t.e., confirmed, namely, as KAnpovdéuor of the Messianic king- 
dom. [See Note XIJ., p. 353.] See what follows. Comp. iv. 30, and see on 
2 Cor. i. 22 ; John iii. 83. This sealing is the indubitable guarantee of the 
future Messianic salvation received in one’s own consciousness (Rom. viil. 16) 
through the Holy Spirit, not the attestation before others.* An allusion has 
been arbitrarily found in éogpay. to cirewmcision (Rom. iv. 11), or to the oriy- 
para Of heathen ceremonies (Grotius assumes both : ‘‘ non extra signati estis 
in cute, quomodo Judaei circumeisi et Graecorum idolorum punetis notati,” ‘‘ye 
were not sealed outwardly in the skin,” asthe Jews were circumcised and 
the Greeks were stamped with the marks of their idols’), nay, even to the 
a¢payic Dianae, with which those initiated into her mysteries were marked.° 
—Té mvebpate tie érayyed.| Dativus instruwmentalis, ‘instrumental dative,” 





and ric éxayy. is genitivus qualitatis, ‘‘ genitive of quality,” denoting the 
promise as characteristic of the Holy Spirit, for He is, in fact, the Spirit 
promised in the O. T. (Acts ii. 16 ff. ; Joel iii. 1-5; Zech. xii. 10; Isa. 


momedo, xiv. 3; Hzek. xxxvi. 26 f., xxxix, 29. 
Others :° the Spirit, who confirms the promise (of 
But how wholly imported, since in rveiya itself there is implied 


cima Gale ii, 14). 
salvation). 


1 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. 

2If evd belongs to éodpay., we must, in 
the event of 6 applying to the Gospel, ex- 
plain: ‘‘by means of which ye also, after 
ye became believers (or ye, after ye also 
became believers), were sealed.’? Comp. 
Beza. But if dis to apply to Christ, the 
sense would be: ‘‘in whom (being) ye also, 
after ye became believers (or: ye, after ye 
also became believers), were sealed.’”? How 
utterly superfluous morevoaytes is in either 
case, will be at once felt. Harless regards 
é€v das more precisely defined by 76 mvevpart, 
inasmuch as the Spirit of God is also the 
Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9; 2 Cor. iii. 17: 
Gal. ivy. 6). But even thus morevcavtes 


Comp. Luke xxiv. 49 ; 


remains unnecessary, since év 6 surely ex- 
presses the already existing spiritual union 
with Christ. 

3 As to the single instance of the effusion 
of the Spirit defore baptism, see on Acts x. 
44, 

4@oTe eivar SHAoV, TL Meov Eate Adyxos kK. 
kAjjpos, ‘‘so that it may be evident that ye 
are God’s lot and inheritance,’ Theophy- 
lact ; comp. Chrysostom, Cornelius & La- 
pide, Flatt, Holzhausen, and others. 

5 Amelius ; comp. note on Gal. vi. 17. 

6 Calvin, Beza, Castalio, Piscator; and as 
early as Chrysostom and Theophylact, 
alongside of the former correct view. 


302 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


nothing at all of the notion of confirmation ! No, the Old Testament prom- 
ise belonged to the Spirit ; He is specifically the Spirit of promise, and by 
that very fact He became for the recipients the sealing of Messianic blessed- 
ness. —7O dyiv| is not added accidentally, nor yet because the sanetificatio 
of the Spirit would be the confirmatory element,’ for in 76 dyiw there is im- 
plied the quality, not the effect of the Spirit ; but Paul desires to bring out 
very emphatically and solemnly that, by which the c@payitecbac has been ac- 
complished ; hence he says, with corresponding pathos : 76 rveimate tig 
émayyehiac 7@ ayiv. We may add that we are not to think, with Grotius, 
Estius, and others, of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, since, in fact, the 
tueic generally are the o@payobévrec, but rather of the outpouring of the Spirit, 
which all experienced after their baptism (Acts ii. 88 ; Gal. iii. 2 ff.). See 
also, ver. 14. — According to Schwegler,* the zveiya tic éxayyed. is to be held 
as pointing to the later period, to which the doctrine of the Paraclete in 
the (not genuine) Gospel of John belongs. But Comp. Gal. iii. 14. 

Ver. 14. “O¢ éoriy appaBov tH¢ KAnpovouiac ju. | stands in significant relation 
(as affording more precise information) to éo@payicOyre : whois earnest of our 
inheritance ; for in the reception of the Spirit the recipients have obtained 
the guarantee—as one receives earnest-money as a guarantee of future pay- 
ment in full—that they shall become actually partakers of the Messianic 
blessedness (comp. Rom. viii. 15-17 ; Gal. iv. 6, 7). 6c, applying to the 
mvevua, not to Christ, agrees in gender with appaBdv.? As to the eperegetic 
relative, see Niigelsb. on Hom. Jlias, ed. 3, p. 3. As to appaBdv, see on 
2 Cor. 1. 22. —eic aroAttpucw the mepitorjoews| unto the redemption, etc., is 
likewise (comp. also iv. 30) the causa jfinalis, ‘‘final cause,” of éodpayicbyre 
k.T.2., Consequently that, to which the purpose of God was directed, when 
ye were sealed. Comp. ver. 10. Others connect it with 6¢ gor. . . 7pev,* 
in which case cic is taken by some likewise in a telic sense, by others as 
usque ad (the latter at variance with the parallel ei¢ which follows). But 
the more precise definition thus resulting would in fact be, after r. «Aypov. 








ju., quite self-evident and unnecessary. — The azoAitpwore is here—in ac- 
cordance with the whole connection, and because the repuoinoic (see below) 
is the subject which experiences the aroditpwouw—the final consummation of 
the redemption effected by the ditpov of Christ (ver. 7) at the Parousia 
(Luke xxi. 28), when suffering, sin, and death are wholly done away, and in 
the glorifying (resurrection, or relative transformation) of the body there 
sets in the Jéfa of the children of God, and the in all all-determining do- 
minion of God (1 Cor. xv. 28). See Rom. viii. 18-23; 1 Cor. xv. 54 fff. 
Comp. Eph. iv. 30. Beza aptly terms this final definitive redemption 
aroditpwow édevdepdoews. — The repiroinowg avtov (for avrov at the end does 
not apply, as it is usually referred, merely to rac dééyc, but also to rie repe- 
mowgo., Whereby the latter obtains its definite character, and the discourse 
gains in vividness and energy’*) is the acquisition of God, i.e., the people ac- 


1 Pelagius, Lombard. 4 Estius, Flatt, Rtickert, Schenkel, Bleek, 
2 In Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, p. 383. a. 
3 See Herm. ad Viger. p. 708 ; Heindorf, a7 5 So also Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. 2, p. 295 


Phaedr. p. 279; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 241 [E. and Schenkel. 
Ns sil] 


CHAP. 1., 14. 300 


quired by God for His possession, by which is here meant the whole body of 
Christians, the true people of God, acquired by God as His property by 
means of the redeeming work of Christ. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9; as also Acts 
xx. 28, where the Christian community is presented as the acquisition of 
Christ (comp. Tit. ii. 14). The expression quite corresponds to the Hebrew 
mm m0, by which the people of Israel is designated as the sacred pecw- 
lium Dei, ‘peculiar treasure of God,” and opposed to the Gentiles. See 
Ex xix. 0; Deut. vii-6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18 f..; Ps. ecxxxv. 4. The LXX. too, 
though usually expressing the notion of 30 by repiovcroc, translate it, Mal. 
iii. 17, by repiroinote. Comp. also Isa. xliii. 21: Aady pov bv Teprerrounodunv 
CAYS?) «.7.A. The objection to this view,! that repuroijcwe never in itself, 
without defining addition, signifies the people of God,’ entirely disappears 
when we take in the airov: ‘‘unto redemption of His acquired possession, 
unto the praise of His glory.” Others, retaining likewise the signification of 
acquired possession, explained it in the neuter sense, like Calovius (comp. 
already Bugenhagen) : ‘‘ plena fruitio redemtionis haereditatis nobis acqui- 
sitae,” ‘‘ the full fruition of the redemption of the inheritance acquired for 
us.” Comp. Matthies: ‘‘ unto the redeeming of the promised glorious 
possession.”’ But how can it be said of the salvation acquired for us, that 
it is redeemed ? And the plena fruitio, ‘‘ full fruition,” isimported. Beza, 
wrongly denying the concrete use of cepiroijoic, insists upon the abstract 
notion of vindication, assertion, and specifies as the meaning : ‘‘ dum in liber- 
ationem vindicemur,” ‘until we are emancipated.” But this would need to 
be expressed by eic repiroinow tic arodvtpdoewg (comp. 1 Thess. v. 9 ; 
2 Thess. ii. 14). The word is also taken in the abstract sense by those 
who understand it as preservation, conservatio,® like Bengel, Bos (‘‘ re- 
demtio, quae salutem et conservationem affert,” ‘‘redemption which 
effects salvation and preservation”), Bretschneider (‘‘redemtio, qua vitae 
aeternae servamur,” ‘‘redemption whereby we are preserved unto eternal 
life”), Holzhausen (who, following Homberg, arbitrarily assumes aoa. ric 
mepir. to stand for aod. kat repir.). But against these explanations it may 
be decisively urged that in the case of repiroinowe the thought : unto ever- 
lasting life, or the like, is added arbitrarily, and that the assumed genitive 
relation does not arise out of the notion of aroditpworc, according to which 
the genitive is either the subject, which is redeemed (Luke xxi. 28 ; Rom. 
Vili. 23), or expresses that, from which one becomes free (Heb. ix. 15 ; 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. Ii. p. 178). To the erroneous attempts at explanation 
belongs also that * which takes ri¢ reperoujoewe for tiv repiroiMeicar, the re- 
demption acquired for us, or (so Bleek) the redemption, which is to become our 
possession.*° — cic ixawov tic d6En¢ abtov] a climactic parallel to what goes 


2 


before, containing as it does the jinal aim of God in the sealing with the 


1 Which is followed, after the Peshito and Patr. p. 633; Plat. Defin. p. 415 C; Wetst. 
Oecumenius, by Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, If. p. 424. 


aud most expositors, including Flatt, Riick- 4 Vatablus, Koppe. 

ert, Meier, Harless, Oishausen, de Wette, 5 This sense, too, would in fact have 

Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel. needed to be expressed by eis repimotyouy 
2 See especially Koppe. THS aTOAUTPHTEWS. 


3 Heb. x. 89; 2 Chron. xiv. 18; Zest. X77. 


334 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

Holy Spirit. And thus has Paul accordingly reached what he had in view 
in the joining on of é @ cai tyeic, ver. 13, namely, the assigning to the 
Gentile-Christians the same ultimate destination, which he has in ver. 12 
predicated of the Jewish-Christians. — The reference of avrov to God, as in 
vv. 12, 6,’ flows from éc¢pay., which is God’s act.2 The glory of God is the 
final aim of the whole unfolding of salvation. 

Ver. 15.* Only now, after the general ascription of praise to God for the 
Christian economy of salvation, which had since ver. 3 flowed forth from 
him in an enraptured greeting, does Paul reach that, with which he is wont 
on other occasions at once to begin—the thanksgiving to God for the Chris- 
tian position of the readers, and intercession for them. — d:a tovro| has refer- 
ence to vv. 13, 14: because this is the case, that ye too are in Christ and have 
been sealed with the Holy Spirit, etc. See already Theophylact. There isno 
reason for going farther back and referring it to the whole preceding devel- 
opment from ver. 3 onward,‘ since thanksgiving and intercession have 
reference to the readers, and it is only ver. 13 that has led over to the 
latter. — xay]| I also ; for Paul knows that by his exercise of prayer, ver. 
16, he is co-operating with the readers. Comp. on Col. i. 9. — axoboag] does 
not serve to prove that the Epistle could not have been written to the Ephe- 
sians, or not to them alone (see Introd. § 1) ; Grotius in fact has already 
aptly remarked : ‘‘Loquitur autem apostolus de profectu evangelii apud 
Ephesios, ex quo ipse ab illis discesserat,” ‘‘the apostle speaks, moreover, of 
the progress of the Gospel among the Ephesians from the time when he had 
departed from them.” ® No doubt Olshausen® maintains that Paul so ex- 
presses himself as to make it apparent that with a great proportion of his 
readers he was not personally acquainted, appealing to Col. i. 4. But may 
he not here, as at Philem. 5, have heard respecting those who were 
known to him, what at Col. i. 4 he has heard respecting those who were 
previously unknown to him?—rjv kal? tude riot] jsidem, quae ad vos 
pertinet, i.e., vestram fidem, ‘‘the faith which pertains to you, 2.é., 
your faith.” Comp. Acts xvii. 28, xviii. 15, xxvi. 3.7. The difference 
between 7 xa iuac rictec and 7 riotic budv lies only in the form of concep- 
tion, not in the thing itself. Yet the mode of expression, not occurring 
elsewhere in the letters of the apostle, belongs to the peculiar phenomena of 
our Epistle. The assertion of Harless, that it denotes the faith of the 
readers objectively, as in itself athing to be found among them, while # xiari¢ 
iuav denotes it subjectively, according to its individual character in each one, ® 
is the less capable of proof, in proportion to the prevalent use among the 
later Greeks of the periphrasis of the genitival relation by kard.*— év 7@ 


1Not, with Estius and Hofmann, to 
Christ. 

2 See van Hengel, Annot. p. 198 ff. 

3 On vv. 15-19, see Winzer, Commentat., 
Lips. 1836. 

4 Harless, Winzer, Schenkel, and others, 
following Oecumenius. 

5 Comp. Winzer, p. 5; Wiggers in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1841,.p. 480 f.; Wieseler, 


p. 445; and already Theodoret in loc. 

® Comp Bleek. 

7 Thue. vi. 16.5 (7d kar avtots Biw); Ael. 
V. H. ii. 12 (y Kar’ adrov apern). 

§ Comp. Matthies and Schenkel. 

9 See Valckenaer, ad Luc. p. 4f.; Schaefer, 
ad Long. p. 380; Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. 
xiv. 12. 


CHAP. 0165-17. 335 


xupiv| belonging to rior (fidem vestram in Christo repositam, ‘‘ your faith 
reposed in Christ’), and blended without any connecting article into unity 
of idea with it. See on Gal. iii, 26. Winzer connects it with tyac: 
“¢fidem, quae vobis, Domino Jesu veluti insitis, . . . inest,” ‘‘ faith which 
is in you, as though you were in the Lord Jesus ;” but this is forbidden by 
the order of the words. — kai tiv ayar. thy ei¢ rdvtag x.t.A.] Here, too, Paul 
might have left out the second article, so that the sense would be: xai 7d 
ayarny tuac éEyew ei¢ wavtag (comp. Col. i. 4), as at 2 Cor. vil. 7: rév tydv 
CHaov brép éuov. But he has first thought of the notion of love in itself, and 
then added thereto, as a special important element, the thought, rv eic¢ 
mavrac T. ay. —mavrac ‘‘character Christianismi,” ‘‘ the stamp of Chris- 
tianity,” Bengel. Comp. vi. 18; Philem. 5. We may add Chrysostom’s 
apt remark : ravtayov ovvarres Kai ovyKoaAd tiv riot Kal THY ayartyy BavuaorHy 
twa Evvepida, ‘‘ He everywhere joins and cements faith and love—a wonderful 
Pie eecomp. Gal. v.63 1 Cor. xiii. 

Ver. 16. 0% ratouac| a popular form of hyperbole. My thanksgiving—so 
full and urgent is it—can find no end. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2 ; Luke ii. 37 ; 
Herod. vii. 107 : rovrov dé aivéwy ovn éravero, ‘‘He did not cease praising 
this one.” —etyapiotév brép tyav] to give thanks on your account. On the 
participle, see Herm. ad Viger. p. 771; Bernhardy, p. 477; and on irép 
(super vobis, ‘‘over you’), comp. v. 20; Rom. i. 8, Elz. ; 1 Tim. ii. 1. — 
Eveiav Trolovmevoc éxt TOY Tpocevy. wou] accompanying definition to ev yapiorav : 
while I make mention inmy prayers. Comp. Rom. i. 9; 1 Thess. i. 2; Phil. 
i. 8; Philem. 4. What Paul makes mention of is learned from the context, 
which furnishes not merely juév (Elz. ; see the critical remarks), but a 
more precise definition, namely : of what he has heard concerning the faith 
and love of the readers, and for which he gives thanks on their account. 
This pveiav rowobpyevog x.7.2., however, is not superfluous, and after edyap. 
irép tu. self-evident ; but it serves, through the close joining on to it of the 
following iva «.7.2. (after ver. 16 only a comma is to be placed), as a means 
of leading over from the thanksgiving to the intercession connected with it, 
and is thereby accounted for. — ixi] of the prevailing relations and circum- 
stances, in or under which anything takes place. See on Rom. i. 10. 

Ver. 17. “Iva 6 Ocdc x.7.2.] contains the design cherished by Paul in the pvetav 
. . . Tpocevy. ov: inorder that God might give you, etc. In this expressed design 
is implied the intercessory tenor of the nveiav roveicbar; hence ivais not here to be 
deprived of its notion of design, nor is it to be explained’ by supplying before it 
the conception of ‘‘ praying.” The apostle would say that what he has heard of 
their faith, etc., induces him to unceasing thanksgiving on their behalf, while 
he makes mention of it in his prayers to the end that God might give them, ete. 
The telic ézwc, Philem. 6, stands in another connection than the iva in our 
passage. See on Philem./.c. The optative dé? is used, because the design 
is thought of as subjective conception and expectation, the realization of which 
is dependent entirely upon the will of God, and consequently belongs only 








1 Harless; comp. Riickert, Olshausen, of doin, see Buttmann, I, p, 507; Lobeck, 
Winer, § 41, and others. ad Phryn, p. 346. 
2On this form of later Greek instead 


336 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

to the category of what is wished and possible. On iva with an optative * 
after the present or future, see, generally, Hermann, ad Soph. Hl. 57 ; ad 
Aj. 1217 ; Reisig, ad Oed. Ch. p. 168 ff. ; Bernhardy, p. 407 ; and especially 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 622 ff. — 6 Oed¢ rod Kvpiov ju. I. X.] for God has sent 
Christ—who, having before all time proceeded from His essential nature 
(Col. i. 15), was the creative organ of the Father—forth in the fulness of 
the time in pursuance of His decree, to which the Son was obedient (Phil. 
ii. 8), has given Him up to death, raised and exalted Him, and is continually 
the Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), who even as civ@povoc, ‘‘ co-enthroned,” of 
the Father is subordinate to the Father (Rom. viii. 34), [See Note V., p. 38, 
by Am. Ed., on Galatians], and finally will give back to God the dominion 
which God has given to Him (1 Cor. xv. 27, 28). In the consciousness of 
His relation of dependence on God, Christ Himself calls the Father 6eé¢ ov, 
John xx. 17; Matt. xxvii. 46. Comp. Col. 11. 2, Lachm. The opinion extorted 
in the anti-Arian interest from the Fathers,’ that 6 Oed¢ tov kup. applies to 
Christ’s human nature, and 6 rarip ric d6Enc to the divine,* isto be mentioned 
only as matter of history, asare also the forced construction, to which Meno- 
chiusand Vatablus were induced by a like prejudice to resort, that Oed¢ and 
ticdéenc are to be taken together (rov kupiov. . . rat#p being inserted), and 
the at least more skilful turn of Estius: ‘‘ Deus, qui est Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi pater gloriosus,” ‘‘ God, who is the glorious father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ.” — 6 raryp tip¢ 66En¢| the Father (namely, of Christians) to whom the 
glory (the majesty kar’ éfoy7v, ‘‘ pre-eminently”) belongs. See on Acts vii. 
2, and 1 Cor. 11.8. The resolution into an adjective pater gloriosus, ‘‘ glori- 
ous father,”’* is in itself arbitrary, does not exhaust the eminent sense of 7 
dé£a, and fails to perceive the oratorical force® of the substantival designa- 
tion. Others take raz in the derived sense of auctor, ‘‘ author,” *® so that 
God is designated as He, from whom the glory of the Christians’ proceeds. 
Certainly the idea of auctor, ‘‘ author,” may be expressed, specially in the 
more elevated style, by rar#p ;° but as this is nowhere else done by Paul, 
so here he has no reason for resorting to such an usage, to which besides the 
analogous expressions, Oed¢ tic ddEyc, ‘‘ God of glory” (Ps. xxix. 3; Acts 
Vii. 2), Baowdede tHe d6Enc, ‘King of glory” (Ps. xxiv. 7), Kipsoc tao dbENG, 
“Lord of glory” (1 Cor. ii. 8), XepovBiu ddEnc, ‘‘ cherubim of glory” (Heb. 
ix. 5), are opposed. We may add, that the description of God by 6 O¢éc 


1 Lachmann and Riickert (as also Fritz- 
sche, ad Rom. III. p. 230) write 667 with an 
iota subscriptum under 7, sO that it would 
thus be the Ionic subjunctive (Od. xii. 216). 
But often asthe aorist subjunctive of diSwjur 
occurs in the N.T., this omeric form never 
presents itself. The form éo in B is a man- 
ifest emendation. 

2 See Suicer, 7es. I. p. 944. 

3 dofav yap THv Oclay dicw wvopacer, “for 
he called the divine nature, glory!” Theo- 
doret and Oecumenius ; comp. even Ben- 
gel and Bisping. 


4Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaelis, and 


others. 

5 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. 

6 Erasm. Paraphr.; Bucer, Cornelius & 
Lapide, Grotius,Wolf, and others, including 
Holzhausen and Olshausen. 

7 According to Grotius: of Christ and the 
Christians. 

8 Job xxxviii. 28; Jas. i. 17, where the 
data are personified; Pind. Pyth. iv. 313, 
where Orpheus is called aoSav raryp; and 
see Ast, Lew. Plat. III. p. 66; Jacobs, ad 
Ach. Tat. p. 892 f. ; John viii. 44 is not here 
applicable. 


CHAP? Tey 1: 337 


. . . 06&y¢ stands in appropriate relation to the design of the intercession ; 
for of the God of Christ and Father of glory it is to be expected that He 
will do that, which the cause of Christ demands, and which serves to the 
manifestation of His own glory. Oecumenius rightly remarks : kai mpdc rd 
KpoKeiwevov ovoudter Tov Oedv.—rvedtua oogiag x. atoxasiy.| The Holy Spirit, 
too (for it is not the human spirit that is here meant, as Michaelis, Riickert, 
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek would take it*), Paul is wont to 
characterize zpoc To rpoxeiuevov, Rom. viii. 2, 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; Gal. vi. 1. 
Comp. 2 Tim. i. 7. Here: the Spirit who works wisdom and gives revelation 
(1 Cor ii. 10). The latter is a greater result of the work of the Spirit,? in 
accordance with which He not only by His enlightening operation fur- 
nishes wisdom (yvace Oeiwy k. avOpwrivwv mpayuatwv kat TOV TobTwY aiTiwr, 
“‘the knowledge of things divine and human, and of their causes,” 4 Mace. 
i. 16 ; conceived of, however, by Paul in reference to the Christian economy 
of salvation, comp. ver. 8), but further, as the organ of God, effects also 
special revelations of divine saving truths and purposes not otherwise 
known. Harless regards x. aroxad. as the objective medium, which brought 
about the state of cogia, so that the character of the codia is more precisely 
defined by x. azoxa?. But in passages like Rom. 1. 5, yapev x. azxocrorgv, Xi. 
29, ra yapiouara kK. 1) KAgowc Tov Oeov, the discourse advances from the general 
to the special, not from the thing itself to its objective medium. Logically 
more natural, besides, would be the advance from the objective medium to 
the subjective state, according to which Paul would have written : azoxaii- 
wewc Kal cogiac. Finally, the climactic relation, which is brought out in the 
two words under our view, makes the wish of the apostle appear more fer- 
_ vid and full, and so more in keeping with his mood. It is obvious of it- 
self, we may add, that Paul here desires for his readers, to whom in fact 
the Spirit has been already given from the time of their conversion (ver. 
13), a continued bestowal of the same for their ever-increasing Christian en- 
lightenment.? Baur, p. 487, conjectures here something of a Montanistic 
element. But it was not by the Montanists that the rveiua was first re- 
garded as the principle of Christian wisdom, etc. ; it isso already in the 
teaching of the whole N. T. —év émyvécer avtov] That abrov does not apply 
to Christ,4 but to God (although we have not to write airow), is clear from 


The 


1 Rickert: “‘God grant youa heart wise 
and open for His revelations ;’’ de Wette: 
“the quality of mind which consists in 
wisdom (mediate knowledge) and reve- 
lation (susceptibility for the immediate 
knowledge of divine truth’). According 
to Schenkel, it is the spirit wrought in the 
regenerate by the Holy Spirit. All this is 
opposed to the N. T use of mvedua with the 
genitivus absiracti, ‘‘abstract genitive.” And 
nowhere in the N. T., where the being given 
is predicated of the mvedua, is it anything 
else than the odjective mv., whether it be di- 
vine or demoniacal (Luke xi. 13 ; John iii. 34; 
Acts Vili. 18, xv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 8; 2 Tim. i. 

9) 


is) 1 Johm, i. 24)" Rom. v. 5, xi. 8); 
presence or absence of the article with 
mvevuwa Makes no difference ; see on Gal. v. 
16. As to the singular expression mvedma 
aywwavvys, used of the Spirit of Christ, in 
Jtom. i. 4, see on that passage. 

2 But not, as Olshausen (comp. Grotius) 
maintains, the xapisua of prophecy,. of 
which the more detailed exposition, ver. 
18 ff., shows notrace. And Paul, in fact, is 
praying for all his readers. See, however, 
1iCOry ExT 2o: 

3\Comp. Col. 1:9. 

4Beza, Calvin, 


Calovius, Baumgarten, 


Flatt. 


338 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

the abrov of vv. 18, 19; it is only at ver. 20 that the discourse passes over 

to Christ. Nor is év érzyv. aitov, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zachariae, 

Koppe (with hesitation), Lachmann, Olshausen (who was forced to this by 

his explaining rvevya cog. «. droxad. in the sense of extraordinary charis- 

mata), to be attached to what follows, whereby the parallelism (vevpa ood. 

x. amok. is parallel with zegor. 7. 660. 7. kapd. du., and év éxcyv. avr. with etc 76 

eldévat k.7.2.) Would without reason be destroyed ;? but it denotes the sphere 

of mental activity, in which they, already at work therein (and that likewise 

through the Spirit, ver. 13), are to receive the spirit of wisdom and reve-- 
lation.2 Erroneously év is taken for eic,? or as per,* which latter would 
represent the knowledge of God as bringing about the communication of the 

Spirit, and so invert the state of the case. It is true that Calovius remarks: 

‘‘quo quis magis agnoscit Christum, eo sapientior fit et revelationem divini 
verbi magis intelligit,” ‘‘The more one acknowledges Christ, the wiser he 
becomes, and understands the revelation of the divine word the better ;” 

but the question is one, not of an agnitio, but of a cognitio, and not of wn- 

derstanding the revelation of the word, but of a revelation to be received 
through the agency of the Holy Spirit. —In ériyveor observe the force of 
the compound, which implies an exact and penetrating yvoor, as is very evi- 
dent especially from 1 Cor. xiii. 12, and is wrongly denied by Olshausen.* 
[See Note XIII., p. 353. ] 

Ver. 18. Heguricpévove rove o¢fadporc x.7.2.] is usually * taken as apposition- 
al, and made dependent on 6@7 tuiv ; in which case it has been rightly ob- 
served that the translation should not be, with Luther : enlightened eyes, but, 
on account of the article: He may give to you the eyes enlightened, etc. 
But (1) in general an enlightened understanding is not proper to be set forth 
as in apposition to the Holy Spirit, but rather as the effect of the same. (2) The 
conception that God gives to them their eyes (which as such they already 
have) in the condition of enlightenment, as ze@wricvévovc, remains in any 
case an awkward one ; inasmuch as we should have to transform the giving, 
which was still a proper and actual giving in ver. 17, zeugmatically into the 
notion of making at ver. 18,7 in order to remove the incongruity caused by 
the presence of the article. Bengel, with his fine insight, aptly remarks : 
‘‘ Quodsi 4¢6a2,uob¢ esset sine articulo, posset in sensu abstracto sumi (enlight- 
ened eyes) et cum det construi,” ‘‘ But if 69Aa%uob¢ were without the article, 
it could be taken in an abstract sense (enlightened eyes) and be construed with 
det.” Hence, with Beza, Bengel, Koppe, Bleek, redwriou. is to be taken as 


ismatic sense was the name—as it were, 
the terminus technicus, ‘‘ technical goal,” for 


1 See Harless. 
2 Comp. 2 Pet. i. 2. 


3 Luther, Castalio Pisecator, Cornelius 4 
Lapide, Wolf, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Rosen- 
miiller, and others. 

4 Erasmus, Calovius, and others. 

5 Olshausen appeals to the fact that, just 
where the most exalted form of knowledge 
—the charismatic—is spoken of, the word 
employed is not ériyvwors, but yvaors, 1 Cor. 
xii. 8, xiii. 8. T'vaors, however, in the char- 


the thing—which as such was meant to de- 
note the essence, not the degree. Comp. 
Goleing: 

6 As also by Riickert, Matthies, Meier, 
Holzhausen, Harless, Winzer, Olshausen, 
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, 
Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 272. 7 

7 Flatt, following Heinsius, quite arbi- 
trarily supplies etvac. 


CHAP.) 1.5, LS. ood 


the so-called accusative absolute, such as, from a mingling in the conception 
of two sorts of construction, is to be met with often also in classical writers 
—and that without repeating the subject (ijuac) in the accusative (in opposi- 
tion to Buttmann)—instead of another case which would be required in 
strict accordance with the construction, particularly instead of the dative ;' 
and thus Beza’s proposal to read ceowriopuévore Was entirely uncalled for.” 
Accordingly, reduricu. relates to iuiv, and radc¢ 460. is the accusative of more 
precise definition : enlightened in respect of the eyes of your heart, i.e., so that 
ye are then enlightened, etc., with which is expressed the result of the com- 
munication of the Spirit prayed for.* — rode o¢6aru. tH¢ Kapd. iu.] figurative 
designation of the wnderstanding,* which is enlightened, when man discerns 
the divine truth. The opposite : Rom. i. 21, xi. 8,10. The reference of 
the enlightenment to knowledge is necessarily given by 6¢0aAmotc, and should 
not have been regarded as one-sided ;° and the power of the new life is not 
here included under the regwricn., since it is not the heart in general, but 
the eyes of the heart that are set forth as enlightened, consequently the or- 
gan of cognition.* —xapdia] does not merely denote, according to the popular 
biblical usage, the faculty of emotion and desire,* but is the concrete ex- 
pression for the central seat of the psychico-pneumatic personality, conse- 
quently embracing together all the agencies (thinking, willing, feeling) in 
the.exercise of which man has the consciousness of his personal inward ex- 
perience ; in which case the context must suggest what side of the self-con- 
scious inner activity of life (here, the cognitive) is in particular to be thought 
in order that ye may know 
what (quanta, ‘‘ how great”) is the hope of His calling, i.e., what a great and 
glorious hope is given to the man, whom God has called to the kingdom of 


of.* —éic 7d eidévar duac| aim of redwtiop. K.T.A. : 


lumeoti pot Ypacos adumvovwy KAVouGcaY 
aGptiws overpatwyv, Soph. Hl. 479 f.; Plat. 
Lach. p. 186D; Thue. v. 79. 1. 

2Comp. Acts xxvi. 3. See, generally, 
Brunck, ad Soph. l.c.; Jacobs, ad Athéii. 
p. 97; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 176 D, 
and ad Rep. pp. 386 B, 500 C, 586 EF; Kiihner 
and Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.1; Négelsb. 
on Iliad, ed. 3, p. 181. 

31 Thess. iii. 13; Phil. iii. 21; Hermann, 
ad Viger. p. 897 f.; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 
690. 

4 Plat. Pol. vii. p. 533D: ro THs Wuxjs Oupa, 
Soph. p. 254 A; comp. Ovid. Met. xv. 64, 
and see Grotius and Wetstein. 

* In opposition to Harless. 

6 Comp. Clem. ad Cor. 1.19: éuBardpopnev 
Tols Ofmace THS WuXAs 
trov BovAynpa, “* Let us look with the eyes 
of our soul to his long-suffering will ; and 
i. 86: nvewxdjoay Huey oi ofFadmol THs Kap- 
dias, ‘“* The eyes of our heart were opened.”’ 

7 Olshausen, Opuse. p. 159 ; Stirm in the 
Tiib. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 53. 

8 Comp. Rom. i. 21; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Heb. iv. 
12; Phil. iv. 7; 2 Pet. i. 19; and see, on the 


els TO pakxpodupov 


activity of the heart in thinking and cog- 
nition, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 248 f., as also 
Krumm, de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 50. 
The observation of the latter, that the 
cognitive activity of the heart is based on 
internal experience (which, however, holds 
good not only as to St. Paul, but also else- 
where in the N. T.), is not refuted by the re- 
joinder of Delitzsch, p. 177. In this very 
passage (comp. iii. 18) the cognition is not 
merely discursive, but the experience, in 
which it has its root, is that of the divine 
communication of the Spirit and enlighten- 
ment. Analogous is the case with 2 Cor. 
iv. 6. As to Phil. iv. 7, see on that passage. 
The heart, as the seat of self-consciousness 
and of the conscience, is the receptacle of 
experience and elaboratesit. Comp. Beck, 
bibl. Seelent. p. 67. Tf it does not admit the 
experience, or does not elaborate it unto 
saving knowledge, it is closed (Acts xiv. 
16), hardened (Eph. iv. 18), slothful (Luke 
XXiv. 25), covered as with a veil (2 Cor. iii. 
15), void of understanding, etc. See also 
Oehler in Herzog’s Encykil. VI. p. 17. 


340 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


the Messiah, by means of that calling (re «dijo. is genitive of the efficient 
cause). éAric, accordingly, is not here, any more than elsewhere (Rom. 
vill. 24 ; Gal. v. 5; Col. i. 5, ai.), res sperata, ‘‘ object hoped for,” as the 
majority, including Meier and Olshausen, take it. Observe also here the 
three main elements in the subjective state of Christians : faith, and love, and 
hope (vv. 15, 18); in presence of faith and love the enlightenment by the 
Holy Spirit is to make the glory of hope more and more known ; for the 
noditenua Of Christians is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20), whither their whole 
thoughts and efforts are directed. Faith, with the love which accompa- 
nies it, remains the centre of Christianity ; but hope withal encourages and 
animates by holding before them the constant object of their aim.’ This in 
opposition to Weiss, who here finds hope brought into prominence, ‘‘ quite 
after the Petrine manner,” as the centre of Christianity.? — kai tic 6 xAodro¢ 
«.7.4] this is now the object of the hope. The repetition of ric, as well as the 
kai ti¢ . . . xai zi, has rhetorical emphasis (comp. Rom. xi. 34 f.); and, in 





6 Thovtoc THE O6ENS THE KAnpovomiac avTov, What a copious and grand accumula- 
tion, mirroring, as it were, the weightiness of the thing itself ! which is not 
to be weakened by adjectival resolution of the genitives.’ dé£a, glory, is the 
essential characteristic of the Messianic salvation to be received from God 
as an inheritance at the Parousia (Rom. viii. 17); and how great the rich 
Julness of this glory is, the readers are called to realize. év roig¢ dyiouw does 
not mean : i the Holiest of all (Heb. ix. 12), as Homberg and Calovius con- 
jectured, for this is not suggested by the context ; but : among the saints 
(Num. xviii. 23; Job xlii. 15 ; Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18); for the community 
of believers (these are the ayo, i. 1, 4), inasmuch as they are to be the sub- 
jects of the Messianic bliss, is the sphere, outside of which this rAobrog x.7.A. 
will not be found. Comp. 6 KAjpoe tov dyiwr, Col. i. 12. It is connected 
with the éo7é to be mentally supplied after ric, so that we have to translate, 
as is required by the article before ziovro¢ : what, i.e., how great and exceed- 
ing, is the riches, etc., among the saints. Harless objects that Paul must 
have written 6 év roi¢ dyiow, and that év roi¢ dyive receives unduly the main 
stress. But the construction ri¢ éavw 6 rA0vTo¢ év Toi¢ dyiowc is in fact logical- 
ly quite correct, and év rote dyiove would have of necessity the main empha- 
sis only if it stood after ric. Usually * év roic dyiow is regarded as an appen- 
dage to ry¢ KAypovon. avtov : ‘the inheritance given by God among the 
saints,” in connection with which Riickert, quite at variance with N. T. 
usage, explains oi dye of the ‘‘ collective body of moraily good beings in 
the other world.” But since 7 «Aypovouia Oeov is completely and formally 
defined by this very @cov (airov), and does not first receive its completeness 
by means of év roic dyiowe (see, on the contrary, Rom. viii. 17; Gal. iv. 7), 
this more precisely defining addition must have been attached by means of 
ryc, and passages like Rom. ix. 3; 1 Tim. vi. 17; 1 Cor. x. 18; 2 Cor. vii. 7 
(see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I, p. 195 f.), are not analogous. If airod were not 


1 Comp. Rom. v. 2, viii. 18 ff. ; 1 Cor. ix. 3 Comp. Col. i. 27; 2 Cor. iv. 17. 
RACE. 202) Cor iviedlivermdlindomt. sh Graly vie 09): 4 As by Riickert, Harless, Winzer, Ols- 
Phil. iii. 12 ff..; Col. i. 28, iii. 1 ff. hausen, but not by Koppe and de Wette. 


2 Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 427. 


CHAPS Tey 19s 341 


in the text, év roi¢ ayiore might be the definition of the xAypovouia here meant, 
and blended with rie KAnpovouiac so as to form one idea. We may add, that 
Harless wrongly refers to the riches of the glory, etc., preponderantly to the 
present earthly Bacireia rot Ocov. Comp. de Wette. It is only the future 
kingdom of God, to be set up at the Parousia, that is the object of the «y- 
povowia (1 Cor. vi. 9, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21; Eph. v. 5; Matt. xxv. 34); and 
here in particular the context (éAmic, ver. 18 5 éyeipac «.7.A., ver. 20) still 
points to the future glory, which Paul realizes as already present. 

Ver. 19 ff. After the object of the hope, there is now set forth also that by 
which it is realized, namely, the infinite power of God shown in the resurrec- 
tion, ete., of Christ : and what (quanta, ‘‘ how great’) is the exceeding (sur- 
passing all measure) greatness of His power in relation to us who believe. The 
construction is as in the preceding portion, and consequently such, that eic 
nude Tove mor. attaches itself not to re duvdy. avtov,' but to the éo7é to be 
mentally supplied after 77. — From the context preceding (¢Ari¢ KAnpovopiac) 
and following (ver. 20 f.) it is clear that Paul is not here speaking of the 
power of God already in the earthly life manifesting itself as regards believ- 
ers in their inward experience,’ not even of this as ineluded,* but only of the 
power to be shown as regards believers in future at the Parousia, where this 
mighty working displayed in Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and appoint- 
ment as Head of the church, must necessarily, in virtue of their fellowship 
with Christ, redound to the fulfilment of the hope, to the d6&a rH KAnpovomiac 
(see vv. 20-23). Hence Paul continues: xara ry évépyecav x.7.2.] This is 
indeed connected by many with rove moretovrac,* in which case the riarebew 
a view which 





appeared as consequence of the évépyera x.7.7., as Epyov Oecd 
was helped among the older expositors® by the interest of opposition to 
Pelagian and Socinian opinions ; but in this way the whole course of thought 
is deranged, and the simple and solemn exposition in ver. 20 is made sub- 
servient to an expression quite immaterial, which Paul might equally well 
have omitted (roi¢ sioreiovrac). It is not the design, according to the con- 
nection, to prove the origin of faith. Chrysostom, Calvin, Calixtus, Estius, 
Grotius, and others, including Meier and Winzer, have found in xara ri 
évépy. K.T.2. an amplification ® of rd trepB. péyeboc x.t.2. But in this way 
all that follows would only be destined to hold the disproportionate place 
of a description, and would be isolated from éi¢ 70 eidévar buac, Which yet was 
the definite basis of the discourse hitherto ; and this isolation there is no 
reason to assume. Hence we have to take xara T. évépy. «.7.2. as the ground 
of knowledge of the preceding point. What is the exceeding greatness of the 
divine power towards believers, the readers are to know in virtue of the 
operation, etc. ; in accordance with this operation they were to measure that 
exceeding greatness. Harless refers it not merely to the preceding point, 


1 Meier, Harless, de Wette, Baumgarten- 3 Schenkel. 
Crusius, Bleek, after many older expositors; 4See Erasmus, Caloyius, Rosenmiiller, 
comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4. Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, and others. 

2 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Photius, > See, especially, Caloyius. 
Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, inelud- 6 De Wette: the real ground ; comp. also 


ing Flatt, Matthies, Rickert, Meier, Har- Bleek. 
less. 


342 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

but to all the three points adduced after cic 76 eidévar tuace. But, as the évép- 
yela Tov Kpatoue THe tcyioc, corresponds simply to the notion of the divayic, we 
are not entitled to refer farther back than to the point in which the divayec 
was spoken of. — rv évépy. rod Kpat. TH¢ ioxbo¢ aitov| a touching accummlation 
of terms, presenting the matter in genetic form ; for icyic¢ is strength in itself 
as inward power, as vis or virtus (Mark xii. 80 ; 2 Pet. il. 11), xpdroc, might 
expressing itself in overcoming resistance, in ruling, etc. (Luke i. 51 ; Acts 
xix. 20; Eph. vi. 10; Col. i. 11; Heb: i. 14; Dan. iv. 275 isan, 
and évépyera, the efficacious working, the active exertion of power.’ The Vul- 
gate aptly renders: ‘‘secundum operationem potentiae virtutis ejus,” *‘ac- 
cording to the operation of the power of his virtue,” and Bengel remarks : 
“<r. évépyerav, haec actus est, ‘i.e., an act ;’ Tov kpatove, hoc in actu est,’ ‘i.e., 
in act.’” 

Ver. 20. "Hv] namely, évépyecav ; see Winer, p. 205. — év 7@ Xpiare] in the 
case of Christ. —yeipac] aorist participle, contemporaneous with the act of 
the verb, like yrwpicac, ver. 9.2 — kai éxaficev| deviation from the participial 
construction after kai.* — év roic éxovpav.| in the heaven (see on ver. 3), is not to 
be transformed into the vague conception of a status coelestis, of a higher rela- 
tion to the world, and the like,* but to be left as @ specification of place. [See 
Note XIV., p. 353 seq.] For Christ is with glorified body, as civOpovoc, ‘ co- 
enthroned,” of the Father on the seat where the Divine Majesty is enthroned 
(see on Matt. vi. 9), exalted above the heavenly angels (ver. 21), in heaven 
(Phil. iii. 20 f.) ; so Stephen beheld Him (Acts vii. 55), and the seer of the 
Apocalypse (Rev. v., ad.) ; and from thence, surrounded by the angels, He 
will return, even as He has bodily ascended thither (1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Acts i. 
11, iii. 21; 1 Pet. iii, 21 f. ; Matt. xxiv. 30, xxv. 31) ; hence also those 
who arise and are changed at the Parousia are caught up eic dépa, ‘‘ into 
the air,” to meet the Lord coming from heaven (1 Thess. iv. 17). Up to 
that time He intercedes for us at the right hand of the Father (Rom. viii. 
34). 
ingly, Mark xvi. 19 : aveAgoOy ei¢ Tov ovpavoy Kai ExdBicev Ex deEiGv Tov Oeoi. 
And our passage itself, ver. 20 ff. (comp. iv. 10), is the commentary on 6 
Oedc avtov trepiuce x.7.2. Phil. ii. 9. 

Ver. 21 is no parenthesis, since neither the construction nor the logical 
progress of the thought is interrupted. — irepdve expresses not the infinite 
exaltedness,* nor yet the dominion over,® although the latter is implied 
in the nature of the case, but simply : up above (Heb. ix. 5 ; Ezek. i. 26, 
vill. 2+) Deut: xxvili. 1; Cant. tr. puer. 37; Tob. 1. 35 Acl Vige aime 
Polyb. xii. 24. 1). The opposite is troxéro, Mark vi. 11 ; Heb. ii, 8. — 
kuploryroc is neither to be understood, with Schoettgen, of 


The true commentary on éxdficev év defid aitod év Toic éxoup. is accord- 


TAOHC APNIC « 


1 For similar combinations of words hay- 
ing a kindred sense, see Lobeck, Paralip. I. 
p. 534 f. Comp. Soph. Philoct. 590: mpos 
igxvos kpatos. Job xxi. 23 (LXX.). 

2 In connection with this, observe the in- 
terchange of the perfect (evjpynxev, see the 
critical remarks) and the aorist (éyetpas) : 
which (working) He has wrought (concluded 


action, regarded from the standpoint of the 
writer), when He raised, etc. 

3 See Hermann, ad Soph. El. p. 153, and 
note on Col. i. 6; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 327 f. 
[E. T. 882]. 

4 Calovius, Harless, Hofmann, and others. 

5 The Greek Fathers, Beza, Estius. 

6 Bengel. 


CHAP: Ts, 21. 343 
the Jewish hierarchs, nor, with van Til,’ of the various grades of Gentile 
rulers, nor, with Morus, of human powers in general, nor, with Erasmus, 
Vorstius, Wolf, Zachariaec, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Olshausen, and others, of 
quodeumque gloriae et dignitatis genus, ‘‘any kind of glory and dignity” 
(comp. 1 Cor. xv. 24); but, as is shown by the immediate context (éxaficev 
- .. & toic éxovpav.) and the analogous passages, iii. 10, Col. i. 16, Rom. 
viii. 838 (comp. also 1 Pet. iil. 22), of the angels, who are designated accord- 
ing to their classes of rank (abstracta pro concretis, ‘‘ abstracts for concretes”), 
and, in fact, of the good angels, since the apostle is not here speaking (as in 
1 Cor. xv. 24) of the victory of Christ over opposing powers, but of His exal- 
tation above the existing powers in heaven. See, moreover, on Rom. viii. 
38. In opposition to Hofmann, who? would find in the different designa- 
tions not any order of rank, but only various relations to God and the world, 
see Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 291 ff.2 Christ Himself already, Matt. xviii. 
10, assumes a diversity of rank among the angels ; it is thus the more arbi- 
trary, that expressions evidently in stated use, which in the case of two 
apostles and then in the Zest. XII. Patr. correspond to this idea (even apart 
from the Jewish doctrine of classes of angels) should not be referred to it. 
More precise information, however, as to the relations and functions of the 
different grades of angels* is not to be given, since Paul does not himself 
enter into particulars on the point, and the Rabbinical theory of classes of 
angels, elaborated under the influence of Platonism, yet dissimilar,® is not 
in keeping with the designations of the apostle,® and has evidently been 
elaborated ata later date. It is nevertheless probable that the order of suc- 
cession is here arranged according to a descending climax ; for (1) the apos- 
tle, in looking at the matter, proceeds most naturally from above downward, 
from the right hand of God to the heavenly beings which hold the neat 
place beneath Him, and so on ; (2) the apyai, é£ovcia, and Ovvdpere are 
always mentioned in the same order (iii. 10 ; Col. i. 16, ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 
22); the éfovcia:, however, with the péva (Col. i. 16) are’ placed in the 
seventh heaven, and the dvvayere only in the third (p. 547), as, indeed, in 
Jamblichus, v. 21, p. 136, the dvvayuerc are placed far below the apyai. Ac- 
cording to this, the @pévor and xvpidéryrec, Col. 1. 16, would be placed in 
juxtaposition as the two extremes of the angelic series. Another view is 
taken by Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 297 f.— That Paul, moreover, sets 
forth Christ as exalted above the angel-world, with a polemic purpose.in 
opposition to the @pyoxeia ayyéAwv of the Gnosis of Asia Minor (comp. Col. 
ii. 18),° is not to be assumed, since the form of the representation maintains 


1 In Wolf. 

2 Schrifibew. I. p. 347. 

3 Comp. also Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 558 f. 

4Tenatius, Zrall. 5, calls them tas torod- 
egias Tas ayyeAukas. Comp. also Hermas, 
Past. i. 8, 4. But if the apyat x.7.A. are 
angels, they are also conceived of as person- 
a, not as “ principles and potencies, pow- 
ers, forces, ordinances, and laws” (Bey- 
sehlag, Christol. d..N. T. p. 244), consequent- 
ly in an abstract sense. The abstract desig- 


nation has its basis in the fact that classes or 
categories of personal beings are expressed, 
just as, ¢.g., e€ovoia issaid of human author- 
ities, Which consist of persons. 

5 See Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. Judenth. IT. 
p. 874; Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabb. I. p. 267 ff. ; 
Gfrorer, Jahrh. d. Heils, I. p. 357 ff. 

® See Harless in loc. ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 
Vepeeco: 

WO Nesta Gils Pale. Pp. O45: 

§ Bucer, Estius, Hug, and others. 


344 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


purely a positive character, and the thing itself was so natural to the Chris- 
tian consciousness generally (comp. Heb. i. 4), and to the connection in the 
ease of our passage in particular, as to need no polemic occasion in order to 
its being expressed, and expressed with such solemnity. Even a purpose 
of guarding against possible infection on the part of such a Gnosis? is at 
least not expressed or more specially indicated ; it may, however, have still 
been partially present to the mind of the apostle from the sphere of thought 
of the previously composed Epistle to the Colossians. Comp. Introd. § 4. 
— kal tavto¢ dvéuatoc K.t.A.| and, i.e., and generally,’ above every name which 
is named. Let any name be uttered, whatever it is, Christ is above it, is 
more exalted than that which the name so uttered affirms. Comp. Phil. ii. 
9. That édvoua is here dignitatis potentiaeve nomen, ‘‘a name of dignity or 
power,” *° as Hom. Od. xxiv. 93 ; Strabo, vi. p. 245 (év dvéuare eivac), and the 
like,* is not to be supposed on account of dvoyafouévov, since this makes the 
simple literal meaning name the only possible one ; ° and, if Morus and 
Harless © have supplied the notion underlying the preceding abstract nouns: 
‘‘above every name, namely, of such character,” they have done so arbitra- 
rily, as zavréc stands without restrictive addition. dav évoua is quite gen- 
eral : any name whatever ; from the heavenly powers, above which Christ is 
placed, the glance of the apostle stretches to every (created) thing generally, 
which may anyhow be named. Comp. ravra, ver. 22.—ovd pévoy k.7.A. | 
cannot belong to éxd@ucev k.7.A.,7 since éxaficev is an act, which has taken 
place in the ciay airoc, but it belongs to dvoyafou.: which is named in the 
present world-period, before the Parousia, and in the future one, after the 
Parousia. As to aidy otiroc and aidy pédAwy, see on Matt. xii. 32. ‘* Natural 
and supernatural order of the world,” ® and similar conceptions, are not to 
be substituted for the historical idea. 

Ver. 22. While Paul has before been setting forth the exaltation of Christ 
over all things, he now expresses the subjection therewith accomplished of all 
things under Christ: xai ravta . . . avtov, with which consequently the 
same thing—the installation into the highest kvpidry¢ (Phil. ii. 10 f.)—is ex- 
pressed, only from another point of view (from below, from the standpoint 
of the object subjected ; previously from above, from the seat of the exalted 
Lord), in order to present it in a thoroughly exhaustive manner. Such a 
representation is not tautological, but emphatic. Theodoret, with whom 
Harless agrees, makes the purpose : kai t7v rpodytixyy éexhyaye waptupiar, ‘‘ He 
also introduced the prophetical testimony.” But the words, while doubt- 
less a reminiscence of Ps. vill. 7 (6), in such wise that Paul makes the expres- 
sion of the Psalm his own, are not a citation, since he does not in the least 
indicate this, as he has done at 1 Cor. xv. 27 by the following érayv 62 eizy. 
Certainly, however, he recognized that, which is said in Ps. vill. of man as 
such, as receiving its antitypical fulfilment in the exalted Christ (see on 


1 Schneckenburger, Olshausen. 5 Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 262 B. 
2 See Fritzsche, ad Matth. pp. 786, 870. ® Comp. also Michaelis and Rickert. 
3 Erasmus, Calyin, Grotius, and others. 7 Morus, Koppe ; comp. already Beza and 


4 See Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 346; Jacobs, Zanchius. 
ad Anthol, TX. p. 226. § Schenkel. 


CHAP. I., 23. 045 
1 Cor. 7.¢c., comp. also Heb. ii. 8), and thereby it was the more natural for him, 
when speaking here of the dominion of Christ, to appropriate the words of 
the Psalm. — raévra has the emphasis, like donc and ravréc before. All— 
all that is created — God has subjected to Christ. If Paul had meant sim- 
ply all that resists Christ,’ he must have said so, since there is no mention of 
subjecting what is hostile either before or in the eighth Psalm. — xai avrov 
x.7T.A.| and Him, the One thus exalted and ruling over all, Him even He 
gave, etc.; observe the emphasis of the airév prefixed. What dignity of the 
church in Him / — édwxe| is usually taken in the sense: of rifmuc ;*? but here 
as arbitrarily as at iv. 11. Grotius and Riickert rightly take it as: He gave 
him. . . to the church. If Paul had conceived of 7H écxA. not as dependent 
on édwxe, but as attached to xed. imép ravta, it would be difficult to see why 
he should not have written ric éxxAyoiac.2 Comp. Col. i. 18. — ixép ravra] 
exalted above ull things, is neither transposed :* ‘‘ipsum super omnia (sc. pos- 
itum) dedit ecclesiae ut caput ejus,” ‘‘ He gave Himself placed above all 
things as Head of his Church,” Grot.; nor does it signify especially (éxi 
mao, Vi. 16), as Boyd and Baumgarten would have it ; nor is it, in its true 
connection with xegad., to be taken as swmmum caput, ‘‘the supreme head,” * 
by which, according to Koppe and Olshausen, it is meant to be indicated 
that Christ is higher than the apostles, bishops, etc. In opposition to this 
interpretation, it may be decisively urged that only One Head to the church 
can at all be thought oi, and that wavra here calls for the same explanation 
as above in the case of rdvta izétaé. Hence rather : and Him He gave as 
Head over all things (to which position, as just shown, He had exalted Him) 
to the church (Christians as a whole). Since He, as Head over all things, was 
given to the church, it is obvious that He was to belong to her in a very 
special sense as her own Head ; hence itis, in accordance with a well-known 
breviloquentia,® unnecessary to supply xedadjv again before 7H éxxa. 

Ver. 23 gives information (jrvc, ut quae, ‘‘as it is,” denotes the attribute 
as belonging to the nature of the éxxAyoia ; see Kiithner, IH. p. 497) as to the 
relation in which the church stands to this Head given to it. It is the body 
of the Head. —7éd céua aizov] namely, in the mystical sense, according to 
the essential fellowship of spirit and of life, which unites the collective 
mass of believers with Christ, their Ruler, into an integrant and organic 
unity, wherein each single individual is a member of Christ in Christ’s body. 
Comoru. 16, iv. 4, 12,16, v. 23, 30.; Coli, 18,24, i. 19, ii. 15 ; Rom: 
xii. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi, 15, x. 17, xii. 18, 27.— 70 Appa Tod Ta wdvta év Tace 


1 Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen, Ols- 
hausen. 

2 Harless: ‘‘and installed Him as Head 
over all things for the church ;” comp. Hof- 
mann, Schriftbew. IL. 2, p. 117. 

3 Hofmann indeed thinks that. if eSwxe TH 
éxkAnoia were to be taken together, Paul 
would not have inserted xehad. vrép ravta. 
But why not? The very position assigned 
to xed. vr. 7., aS placed apart from avror, is 
in keeping with the importance of this defi- 


nition of quality, which at the same time, 
so placed, brings together with striking em- 
phasis urép wavra and TH exxA. Christ has He 
given as Head over all things to the church. 
So high and august is His esteem for it! 

4 Peshito, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Eras- 
mus, Grotius, Estius, and others. 

5 Beza, Morus, Koppe, Riickert, Holzhau- 
sen, Meier, Olshausen, Bleek, comp. Mat- 
thies. 

6 Matthiae, p. 1538; Kiihner, IL. p. 602. 


346 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

TAnpovu.] a significant explanatory parallel to 7d céua abtov, which more pre- 
cisely characterizes the relation of the church to Christ, in so far as the latter, 
as Head overall, is also its Head ; and that in non-jigurative language. The 
church, namely, is the Christ filled, i.e., that which is filled by Him,’ in 
so far, namely, as Christ, by the Holy Spirit, dwells and rules in Chris- 
tians, penetrates the whole Christian mass with His gifts and life-powers, 
and produces all Christian life (Rom. viii. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17; John xv. 
5; Eph. iii. 17 ; Col. i. 27). His presence and activity, through the medium 
of the Spirit, fills the collective Christian body. And Christ, by whom the 
Christian church is filled, is the same zwho jilleth the all (i.e., the rerum univer- 
sitas, ‘‘ universe of things,” whose Head He is, ver. 22) with all, for by Him 
was the world created, and by Him, as the immanent ground of life (Heb. i. 
3), is it maintained and governed (1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16 ff. ; Usteri, 
Lehrbegr. p- 315 ff.) ; hence this interpretation of év raov yields no intoler- : 
able sense,® but is entirely Pauline. Accordingly, by the fact that the church 
is named the rAjpwoua of Christ, the idea that Christ is the Head of the 
church, of His body, receives elucidation ; and by the characteristic desig- 
nation tov 7a TavTa év Taor TAnpovu., is elucidated the conception, that He as 
Head over all is Head of the church, ver. 22. —70 tAf#poya is here (comp. 
generally on ver. 10) equivalent to 7d rerAnpwyévov, ‘‘that which is filled.” 
Thus, as is well known, not only are ships’ cargoes or crews,* but also the 
ships themselves—so far as they are freighted or manned—called rAnpéuara 3* 
thus it is said in Philo, de praem. et poen. p. 920, of the soul : yevouévy dé 
rAhpona apetov ; thus among the Gnostics the supersensible world is called 
7d TAgpwua, the filled, in opposition to 7d Kévwua, the empty, the world of the 
senses.° See also Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 470. év raou is not : everywhere,® 
in all modes of manifestation,’ in all points,® or the like ; but instrumental,° 
as at v.18: with all; and rAnpovuévov is middle, as in Xen. Hell. v. 4. 56, vi. 
2. 14 ; Dem. p. 1208, 14; 1221, 12, in connection with which the medial 
sense is not to be overlooked : qui sibi implet ; for Christ is Lord and final 
aim (ver. 22; Col. i. 16; Heb. ii. 10) of all. Comp. Barnabas, Hp. 12: 
éyele Kal Ev TovTH THY OdEav Tov Inood, Ort év avT@ TavTa Kai ei¢ adtév, ‘‘ you have 
also in this the glory of Jesus ; for in Him and to Him are all things.” The 
ubiquity of the body of Christ, which our text was formerly employed to 
defend (see especially Calovius), and even now is once more adduced to 





1 Not, as Elsner (Q%ss. p. 204) would take 
it : thal by which Christ is filled, against which 
there would be doubtless no linguistic ob- 
jection (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469 f.), 
but it may be urged that the church is not 
to be thought of as dwelling in Christ, but 
Christ as dwelling in the church (1 Cor. iii. 
16; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Eph. ii. 22), and that the 
following paraphrastic designation of 
Christ would not be in keeping with that 
conception. 

2 Schenkel. 

3 Dem. 565, 1. 

4 Lucian, V. Z. ii. 37, 38. 


5 Baur, Gnosis, pp. 157, 462 ff. 

6 Baumgarten-Crusius. 

7 De Wette, Bleek. 

8 Marless. 

® Comp. Plut. de plac. phil. i.7.9: érAjpwto 
év paxapioTytt, ‘‘ He was filled with blessed- 
ness.’ Paul himself has employed zAnpobv 
with such varied construction (with the da- 
tive, Rom. i. 29; with the genitive, Rom. 
xv. 14; with the accusative, Col. i. 9), that 
even the combination with ev cannot sur- 
prise us,—a combination which he has also 
in Phil. iy. 19. 


CHAP. I., 25. 347 
prove (Philippi, Dogm. IV. 1, p. 484), is the less to be found here, seeing that 
the év raov, to be taken instrumentally, makes us think only of the all-pene- 
trating continuous activity of Christ. [See on ver. 20, Note XIV., p. 353 seq. | 
The continuity of this activity is implied in the present wAypovy., in which 
Hofmann, II. 1, p. 539, finds a gradual development, and that of the resto- 
vation of the world ; of which last there is here no mention at all, but, on 
the contrary, of the wpholding and governing of the world, as Col. i. 17 ; 
Heb. i. 3.1. As regards the explanations that differ from ours, we may 
remark—(1) Many, who have rightly apprehended 76 rAjpoua and rAnpovpévov, 
wrongly restrict ra tavta év race to the spiritual operations in the Christians, 
either, as Grotius : ‘Christus in omnibus, credentibus sc., implet omnia, 
mentem luce, voluntatem piis affectibus, corpus ipsum obsequendi facultate, 
ad quae dona perpetua accedebant primis temporibus etiam yapicwara illa 
mvevuatixd, etc.,” ‘‘Christ in all, viz., believing fills all things, the mind 
with light, the will with godly dispositions, the very body with the power 
of obedience, to which perpetual gifts there were added in the first times 
also the spiritual yapicyara,” etc., or, as Flatt (comp. Zachariae and Morus): 
‘who fills all without distinction of nations, Jews and Gentiles, everywhere, 
or always [év rao. ?], with good.” In this view the fact is overlooked that 
Ta wavra, after the preceding xedadyy irép ravra, admits of no sort of limita- 
tion, and that, if rov . . . rAypovuévov were designed only to say how far 
the church is the rAjpoua of Christ, this whole addition would be quite as 
superfluous for the Christian consciousness as it would be indistinctly ex- 
pressed. We have, on the contrary, in 76 rAjpapua Tov x.7.A. a climax of the 
representation, which advances from that which the church is in relation to 
Christ (+6 rAgpoa aitow) to His relation towards the universe (hence, too, ra 
mavra is prefixed).” (2) Since airov and rod ra 7m. év mr. rAnpovu. are signifi- 
cantly parallel, and no change of subject is indicated ; and since, on the 
other hand, the thought, that the church is the rA#peua of God, would be 
inappropriate here, where the idea : Christ is its head, is dwelt on,—all ex- 
planations fall to the ground which refer roi tAypouy. to God, such as that 
of Theodoret : éxAnciav . Tpoonyopevoe TOV mév Xpiotov cHma, Tov dé TaTpOG 
TARpoua’ EXAjpwoe yap adTyv Tavtodarav yapiopatwv «.T.A., and of Koppe, by 
whom the sense is alleged to be : ‘‘the whole wide realm of the All-Ruler!” 
Comp. Rosenmiiller. Homberg, Parerg. p. 289, Wetstein (‘‘ Christus est 
plenitudo, gloria patris omnia in omnibus implentis,” ‘‘ Christ is the fulness, 
the glory of the Father filling all in all’’), and Meier refer the genitive to 
God, but regard 76 rAjpwua as apposition to aivrov ; Meier : ‘‘ Him, the ful- 
ness of Him who filleth all in all ; for in Christ there dwells the fulness of 
God (Col. ii. 9), and it is God who fills the universe” (Jer. xxiii. 24, al.). 
This explanation is manifestly involved, makes jric éoti 7d ca aiTov an in- 


1 Comp. Hermas, Past. sim. iii. 9. 14. 

2 Tt is the more mistaken a course, in spite 
of this advance, yet again to refer év maoc 
to the Christians. This error has misled 
Schenkel to put into our passage the 
thought: “tn all members of the Christian 
community [ev macr] the Divine aim of the 


Creator, underlying the structure of the uni- 
verse, receives its accomplishment through the 
life of the exalted Redeemer flowing into them.” 
But little skill is attributed to the apostle, 
when it is supposed that he designed to ex- 
press this thought by means of the words he 
has written. 


348 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

sertion which, if nothing further were to be added to it, would be after 
Th éxxAnoia quite aimless and idle, and leaves ra rdavra 
év rao Without more precise analysis. The same reasons hold also in oppo- 
sition to Bengel, who regards 76 rAjpoua as accusative absolute (comp. on 
Rom. xii. 1), as epiphonema of what was said from ver. 20 onwards : ‘ Hoe, 
quod modo explanavi, inquit apostolus, repraesentat nobis plenitudinem 
Patris omnia implentis in omnibus, ut mathematici dicunt : id quod erat 
demonstrandum,” ‘‘ What I have thus explained, the apostle says, represents 
to us the fulness of the Father filling all in all, as mathematicians say : 
‘that which was to be proved.’” (3) Since it is self-evident that Christ, as 
Head of the church, is not without this His body, and since it could not 
therefore enter the apostle’s mind, at the solemn close, too, of the section, 
to bring forward the fact that the body belongs to the completeness of the 
head,—all those explanations fell to the ground as quite inappropriate 
which take 70 rAjpoua as supplementum, ‘‘the complement” (Matt. ix. 16 ; 
Mark ii. 21),’ in which case some were consistent enough to take zAnpouuévov 
likewise in the sense of completing, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, Menochius, Boyd, Estius,* and others ; and some inconsistent enough 
to explain it, incompatibly with the paronomasia, by implere, and thus dif- 
ferently from zAjpwua, as Beza,* Calovius, comp. Calvin, Balduin, Baum- 


édwke KEgaAYY . 


1 So also Schwegler in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, 
p. 387, where, moreover, the comparison of 
the union of Christ and the church to mar- 
riage (v. 25 ff.) is brought in quite unwar- 
rantably. Asmanand wife supplement each 
other to form the totality of the species (as 
head and body), so, too, the church (as the 
body of Christ) is held to be the complemen- 
tum, ‘* complement,” of Christ (as the head 
of the church). Baur, too (Paulus, p. 426), 
takes the union of Christ with the church 
here as marriage (as asyzygy), and explains 
TAyjpwoua entirely from the Gnostic point of 
view. 
pove., in his view, nothing else is affirmed 
than that “ Christ is the tAjpwpa (the totality 
of the aeons) in the highest absolute sense, 
in so far asit is all in an absolute manner 
(ta mavTa év aor), Which He fills with Him- 
self as the absolute contents thereof.’ Ac- 
cordingly, 7Ajpwna is to be taken neither 
simply in an active nor simply in a passive 
sense, but in such wise that the two notions 
pass over the one into the other; because, 
in fact, that which makes full is in turn 
that which is thade full, that which is filled 
with its definite contents. ‘t As wAnpovmevos 
Ta TavrTa ev tact, Christ is the 7Ajpwpa, filling 
the ravra ev waor with its definite contents ; 
and this tAjpwpa itself is the absolute total- 
ity filled with its absolute contents.” 
Comp. Baur, d. Christenth. d. drei ersten 
Jahrh. p. 296, and Neutest. Theol. p. 258. 
Operations of this sort, which do not exe- 


By 70 wAyp. Tod Ta Tavta ev Tact TAy- 


getically educe their results, but import 
them, are too much dominated by the pre- 
supposition of post-apostolic relations not 
to be safely left to their own fate, to which 
they have already been consigned. 

2 Qui secundum omnia, s. quoad omnia 
inomnibus sui corporis membris adimple- 
tur. Nisi enim essent hic quidem pes ejus, 
ille vero manus, alius autem aliud membrum 

. non perficeretur Christus secundum 
rationem capitis,” ‘‘ who is fulfilled as to 
all things in-all members of His body. For 
unless this indeed were His foot, and that 
His hand, and another another member, 
Christ would not have been perfected ac- 


_cording to the nature of a Head,” Estius, 


He is followed by Bisping, who here finds 
the basis and germ of the doctrine of the 
treasure of the merits of the saints! 
3**Omnino autem hoc addidit apostolus, 
ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere 
hoe supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in 
omnibus re vera,” ‘‘ But the Apostle added 
this entirely for the purpose that we should 
know that Christ of Himself does not need 
this supplement, since He truly effects all 
things in all,’ Beza. Calovius: ‘‘ Tanto 
in pretio Christus suam habet ecclesiam, 
tam tenere amat, ut se quodammodo im- 
perfectum et mancum reputet, nisi nobis con- 
jungatur, et nos ipst tanquam corpus capiti 
uniamur cev wAjpwpa ejus,” ‘‘In such value 
does Christ have His church, so tenderly 
does He love it, that He accounts Himself 


CHAP. I., 29: 349 
garten ; also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. p. 219 f. : ‘‘His destination, to fill all 
in all, is completely attained only in the church.” [See Note XV., p. 354.] (4) 
The necessity for taking +A7pwua in one and the same sense is fatal to the ex- 
planation of zAjpoua as equivalent to rA7jfoc, copia, coetus, numerosus, ‘* abun- 
dance, numerous assembly,” * or even : full measure.” Further, (5) the passive 
construction of zAnpovuévov (Vulg.) leaves absolutely no tolerable expla- 
nation of ra ravta év aoc; for which reason not only the exposition 
of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, and others (see above, under No. 3), 
but also the similar one of Jerome* and that of Holzhausen, are to be 
rejected. The last-mentioned discovers the meaning : 
Himself the fulness of eternal blessings” (7a ravra év rao, signifying the 
eternal !). Yet, again, (6) seeing that 76 rAfpoua neither in itself nor 
in accordance with the context, denotes the Divine déze, ‘ glory,” of 
which the N25v, ‘‘shekinah,” was the real presence,‘ there falls to the 
ground not only the explanation of those who treat 7d rAypwpa as equiv- 
alent in meaning to temple, like Michaelis and Bretschneider, but also 
that of Harless: ‘‘the apostle designates the church with the same word, 
by which he elsewhere {?] designates the abundance of the glory dwell- 
ing in Christ and God, and issuing from Him. It, however, is the ful- 
ness of Christ, not as though it were the glory which dwelt in Him, but 
because He causes His glory to dwell, as in all the universe, so also in it. It 
is the glory, not of one who without it would starve, but of Him who fills 
the universe in all respects ;° TAnpyC Taca 4 yH SdENC adToL, ‘*the whole earth 


‘“Christ carries in 


imperfect and defective unless joined to us, 
and we ourselves united as a body to the 
Head, as its tAjpwna, Comp. Luther's gloss ; 
also Apol. Conf. A, p. 145. Calvin, more- 
over, prefers to limit 7a mavra to the spir- 
étuaks gubernatio ecclesiae, ‘* spiritual goy- 
ernment of the church.”’ 

1 Storr, Morus, Stolz, Koppe, Rosenmiil- 
ler. Morus: ‘“‘Quae proinde est societas 
subditorum ejus et hominum magna copia, 
quae colit hune (quae subest huic, quae sub 
hoe rege vivit), qui omnes omnino in hoc 
eoetu omnibus generibus bonorum accu- 
mulare de diein diem solet,” ‘‘ Which is, 
accordingly, the fellowship of His subjects, 
and the large number of men, that wor- 
ships Him (that is beneath Him, that lives 
under this King), who is wont from day to 
day in this assembly to increase all men 
with all kinds of blessings.’? Rosenmiiller : 
*Coetus numerosus illius, quiomnes (hom- 
ines) omnibus bonis replet,” ‘‘ The numer- 
ous assembly of Him, who fills all men with 
all blessings,” by which God is held to be 
meant. 

2 Cameron, Bos. 

_ 3*“Sicut adimpletur imperator, si quoti- 
die ejus augetur exercitus, .. . itaet Dom- 
inus noster Jesus Christus in eo, quod sibi 
credunt omnia et per dies singulos ad fidem 


ejus veniunt, ipse adimpletur in omnibus, sic 
tamen, ut omnia adimpleantur in omnibus, 
i.é., ut qui in eum credunt, cunctis virtuti- 
bus pleni sint,” ‘‘Just as the emperor is 
fulfilled, if his army is increased daily... 
so also our Lord Jesus Christ is Himself 
fulfilled in all, in this, that they entrust all 
things to Him, nevertheless so that all are 
fulfilled in all, é.c., that those who believe in 
Him are full of all virtues.” 

4 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2394 ff. 

* According to Harless, ¢v maoc means in 
every way, and implies that not in one way 
(only) is the sphere of earth full of the glory 
of Christ; the glory of the Creator is one, 
that of the Enlightener before the incarna- 
tion (John i. 3) another, that of the Redeem- 
er another. But how is the limitation of 
ta zavrta to the earth to be justified? And are, 
then, these three modes of glory adduced, 
which after all the reader must have guessed 
at without any hint, sufficient to exhaust 
the quite unlimited év wao.? and is the 
thought of the glory of the Creator and the 
Enlightener before the incarnation in keeping 
with the present participle? The whole ex- 
planation pours into the simple words a 
series of thoughts and reservations, in pres- 
ence of which the words remain a very rid- 
dle of the Sphinx. 


300 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

is full of His glory” (Isa. vi. 3) ; but it is the glory of Christ, because He is 
united with it alone, as the head with its body.”’ Lastly, (7) Riickert also 
proved unsuccessful in his attempt to explain it : the church, in his view, 
is designated as the means (76 zAyjpaua, that whereby the rAnpoiv Comes 
about) by which Christ carries out in all (xao1, masculine) that which is com- 
mitted to Him for completion (ra ravra), as ‘‘ the means of His accomplish- 
ing the great destination which devolves upon Him, namely, the universal 
restoration and bringing back to God.” Against this may be urged both 
the language itself, since 7 7/#jpoua never signifies the means of accomplish- 
ment, and the context, which neither speaks of a restoration and bringing 
back to God nor furnishes any limitation of 7a xavra to that which is implied 
in the divine plan. — We may add that there cannot be shown here as 
regards the use of rAjpwua, any more than previously as regards the classes 
of angels, any direct or indirect polemic preference to Gnosticism. To the 
later speculations of Gnosticism, however, the forms of the transcendent 
doctrines of the apostle could not but be welcome ; not as if Gnosticism had 
thought out its material in accordance with such Scriptural forms,! but it 
poured in into their mould, and, moreover, further developed and amplified 
the forms which it found ready to hand. 


Norses By AMERICAN Eprror. 


II. Ver. 3. 6 Oed¢ kat marHp Tov Kupiov. 


Schmidt in the revised Meyer here dissents, and refers to Braune’s argument, 
who contends that the joining of xupiov to the 6 Gedc, as well as to watTHp, is most 
natural, especially as zatTjo does not require, as Meyer states, a complementary 
genitive, see Eph. v. 20; 1 Cor, xv, 24, xvi. 23 ; Gal. i. 1; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. 
i, 2. Neither is the expression ‘‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” so iso- 
lated, ver. 17 ; Matt. xxvii. 46 ; John xx. 17; Rev. ii. 7, iii. 12. The Vatican 
manuscript omits kai ta77p. Eadie, Alford, Barry, Riddle concur in this con- 
struction. Ellicott, on the other hand, inclines to Meyer, while acknowledg- 
ing that the other interpretation is both exegetically and doctrinally tenable. 


III. Ver. 35. év roi¢ érovpaviorc. 


The emphasizing of any local relation here gives a wrong shade to the argu- 
ment. Meyer’s plea that the é» roic éxovpaviowg must be interpreted according 
to the meaning of the expression as found in the other five places it occurs in 
this Epistle, if viewed with respect to local relations, would introduce a singular 
interpretation from chap. vi. 12. A more general explanation is better ; “‘ What 
belongs to heaven in contrast to what belongs to and is on earth” (Braune). ’Ezov- 
pavioc ‘signifies what pertains to heaven as to a higher and more divine order of 
things,” 1 Cor. xv. 40, 48,49 ; Heb. xii. 22 ; Eph. i. 20 ; 1 John iii. 12. ra éovp., 
as against rd éxiyera, that order of things which includes the blessings of com- 
plete salvation. So KAjouc éxovpdvioc, Heb. xiii, 1, dwped exovp., vi. 4; x1. 16. 


1Tertull. de praescr. 38. 


NOTES. 351 


Hence ra exovpdvia denote those blessings collectively, Eph. i. 3, ii. 6 ; Heb, viii. 
5, ix.23; Phil. ii. 10, of exovp., things which come within the range of this 
order’ (Cremer’s Lexicon of N. T. Greek., Eng. Trans. (1878), p. 468). ‘These 
spiritual blessings are truly exovpara, with respect to their origin, since they 
descend from the Father, who is exovpavioc, Matt. xviii. 35 ; with respect to 
their quality, because in dignity and eminence they are neither earthly nor 
heavenly with respect to the earthly and material heavens, but supercelestial, 
which even the angels in heaven delight to ‘look into,’ as they are truly 
‘above thought, above word, above every comprehension of a created nature ;’ 
and with respect to end, because not only in the kingdom of grace on this earth, 
but also in the kingdom of glory in heaven, we enjoy the blessedness acquired 
in Christ” (Calovius), 


IV. Ver. 4. po kataBoAje Kéopov. 

Chrysostom’s note on the etymology of katafoAje (a casting down) is interest- 
ing: ‘* Beautiful is that word, as though he were pointing to the world as cast 
down from some vast height, Yea, vast indeed and ineffable is the height of God, 
so far removed, not in place, but in incommunicableness of nature ; so wide the 
distance between creation and creator !’’ Weiss (Bibl. Theol., Eng. Trans., 
vol. II., p. 98) suggests the argument contained here for the divinity of Christ : 
“Tf Christians are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, and are 
thereby already blessed in Him in the heavenly world, then the Mediator of 
salvation, in whom the election and the blessing could be grounded at a time 
when the objects of these did not exist, must have Himself existed before the 
world. . . For Paul there is at once an eternal divine existence of the Christ 
who in His earthly life has become the Mediator.’’ So also Bengel. The su- 
periority of Christianity to Judaism is also indicated : ‘‘The Jews dated their 
election from Abraham, and boasted of its antiquity’ (Grotius). But “the 
election in Christ preceded the election of the Jewish nation in their forefathers; 
and redemption, the verification of the archetype of humanity through Christ, 
and proceeding from Him, is the end of the whole terrestrial creation, so that 
everything else appears asa preparation for this highest object in the counsel of 
creation in reference to the world’’ (Neander’s Planting and Training of Chr. 
Church, American edition, p, 479). 


V. Ver. 4. dytove kai aduopove. 

The reference of these words by Meyer to forensic righteousness is much 
disputed, though supported by Braune, Olshausen, and Harless. So too Phil- 
ippi (Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, v. 1, p. 278): ‘‘ Justification consists in the nega- 
tive ddeoie TOV TaparTwudtwr, the positive dylove Kal azwuovg eivat, and reception 
into the vio§ecia.’’ Ellicott is in doubt as to whether the reference is to justi- 
fication or sanctification, inclining, however, to the latter, which is maintained 
by Estius, Boyd, Stier, Alford, Eadie, Barry, Riddle, As justification, however, 
is not a subordinate end to sanctification, and the inherent righteousness of 
the believer, however perfect in its final stage, is incomparable with the im- 
puted righteousness of the Redeemer, with which he is clothed in justification, 
we cannot appreciate the exceptions taken to Meyer's view. If the result 
that emerges in time is that Christ became a curse for us (Gal. ili. 13) and we 
are made the righteousness of Godin Him (2 Cor, v. 21), there is nothing incon- 


8d2 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


sistent in regarding the eternal purpose that we should be holy and blameless 
before Him, as directed to that putting on of Christ whereby all that He is 
becomes ours. In the world of glory it is the forensic righteousness that is 
the special theme of the hymns of the church triumphant, Rey. i. 6, vii. 14. 


VI. Ver. 5. zpoopicac judac. 


Other distinctions have been drawn between the é«Acéyec6a and the mpoopiteww: 
“<hey differ only in an ordinative and objective manner,’ the é« of the former 
referring to the mass from whom the selection was made, the zpo of the latter 
to the pre-existence and priority of the decree’ (Scherzer in Ellicott.) ‘‘The 
matter to be considered when zpoopiferv is used, is not who are the subjects of 
this predestination, but what they are predestined to. This second object of the 
verb, as it has been called, forms an essential part of the conception expressed 
by it ; what is called the first object, i.e., the persons who, is an accidental one, 
a contingency belonging to history, whereas zpoopigevy itself precedes history.” 


VIL. Ver. 5. el¢ aire. 


‘* We may thus paraphrase: ‘God predestinated us to be adopted as His 
sons ; and that adoption came to us through Christ, and was to lead us unto 
and unite us to God’” (Ellicott). 


VIII. Ver. 7. trav rapartopmatov. 


Meyer’s inference is here too sweeping. That the inborn sinfulness is not 
here designated must be conceded. But the 7a rapartopdra as the concrete 
manifestation of the sinful habit, may readily be used by synecdoche for 
everything in man that incurs God’s wrath. See Cremer’s Lexicon of N. T. 
Greek (Eng. Trans., 1878, p. 499) : ‘In ruparztopa reference is especially made 
to the subjective passivity and suffering of him who misses or falls short of the 
enjoined command ; aud the word has come to be used both of great and 
serious guilt, and generally of all sin, even though unknown and unintentional 
(Ps. xix. 13 ; Gal. vi. 1), so far as this issimply a missing of the right... . . Like 
its verb, rapdzTwua is used synonymously with duapria as the generic word, 
Rom. v. 20, and is thus a missing of the mark, and includes both duaptia and 
Tmapafsactc.”” 


IX. Ver. 10. cic otkovouiay Tov TAnpaparoc. 


Harless traces the confusion concerning this passage to three sources: 
1. Incorrect translation of ei¢ (when regarded as standing for év). 2. Incorrect 
understanding of oicovouia (dispensation of grace). 3. Wrong construction of the 
genitive, tAnpouatoc. Cremer defines oixovouia as denoting ‘‘ either (1) actively, 
the administrative activity of the owner or of the steward ; or (2), passively, that 
which is administered, the administration or ordering of the house, or the ar- 
rangement, e g., of a treatise or discourse’’ (Platarch). He finds the object of 
oikovouiav not in the tov rAnpwpuatoc, but in the relative jj» mpoéero, Which re- 
sults in the paraphrase : ‘‘ The administration of God’s saving purpose pertain- 
ing to the fulness of the times,” ‘‘administration’’ being taken in its passive 
sense. (Lexicon of N. T. Greek, E. T., 1878, p. 480 sq.). Weiss (Bibl. Theol. 
of N. T., II. p. 79) adopts the temporal meaning of olxovoyiiar, to which Harless 


NOTES. 353 


so strongly objects, viz., a ‘fixed period, in which the measure of the ages that 
are past was to become complete.” Barry, on the other hand, concurs with 
Cremer: “‘ Which He purposed in Himself for administration (or disposal) of the 
fulness of the (appointed) seasons, to gather,” ete. 


X. Ver. 10. dvakedahadoacba: ra ravta, 


The ra tarra is limited by Philippi (Kirch. Dog. III. 393), and Hodge, «‘to the 
redeemed,” by Boyd to the “elect,” while, according to Calovius, all men are 
comprised in the avaxegaiaiwcic, with respect to God’s intention and Christ's 
merit, but it becomes restricted by the guilt of man’s unbelief. Better Eadie: 
«Man is reconciled to God, and all who bear God’s image are reconciled to 
man. Angelsare ‘ministering spirits’ to him, and all holy intelligences delight 
in him. Not only has harmony been restored to the universe, and the rupture 
oceasioned by sin repaired, but beings still in rebellion are placed under 
Christ’s control, as well as the unconscious elements and spheres of nature. 
This summation is seen in the form of the government: Jesus is universal 
Regent.’ Hunnius (quoted by Calovius) presents the relation of this avaked- 
ahaiwowc to the angels : ‘‘ Although nothing is obtained for the angels by Christ’s 
death, yet something is obtained for all that has a certain relation to the angels, 
in that the angels, who formerly were alienated from men by transgression, 
now acknowledge them again as their fellow-servants, associates, and fellows 
of the same joy and kingdom, and, therefore, do not disdain to serve them.” 


XI. Ver. 11. exAnpobnuev. 


The Eng. Rev. Vers., following Bengel, de Wette, Stier, Alford, Ellicott, 
Braune, translates ‘‘we were made a heritage.”’ 


XII. Ver. 13. zodpayicOnre. 


«« By the term ‘sealing’ is not meant the first production of faith, but its ul- 
terior progress and confirmation” (Boyd). ‘‘# ogpayic is undoubtedly used by 
ecclesiastical writers simply for baptism, but any special reference of this 
nature would not appear in harmony with the present context” (Ellicott). «The 
reception of the Spirit,’’ after faith mentioned by Meyer, must necessarily be 
understood of fuller bestowals of the Spirit, since faith itself is His work, 


XIII. Ver. 17. év étyvdcer airov. 


émtyvaoic, ‘always of a knowledge which very powerfully influences the form 
of religious life . . . Thus, as Delitzsch says (Ep. to Hebrews), we may speak 
of a false yvoorc, but not of a false émiyvdouc’’ (Cremer). 


XIV. Ver. 20. év roi¢ éxovpaviorc. 


In Note III. we have indicated that such local restriction is too contracted. 
So here. The de&ia avrov is God’s universal power, Ps. xliv. 3 ; exviii. 15, 16; 
exxxix.10. Yet this must not be so understood as to deny the reality of Christ's 
ascension, or to ascribe to His exalted body a diffusion throughout all space. 
Chemnitz, the great expounder of the position maintained by Harless, says 
(De Duabus Naturis, p. 178) : ‘*We by no means hold, that either in union or in 


23 


ba4 THE EPISI!LE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


glory, with its substance lost and its essential properties abolished, the body 
of Christ: is converted or changed into a spiritual, infinite, immense substance, 
uncircumscribed by any essential property, so as, by reason of its essential, in- 
finite immensity, to be in all places and fill all things, as divinity is in this 
inanner everywhere present... (p. 176) By, and of itself, even in glory, it 
is limited by the property of its nature, and in the manner of glorified bodies 
is somewhere, the privilege of the hypostatic union excepted. . . . Yet it must 
be added that Christ, either in glory or the former natural form, is not so held 
and confined in heaven, as not to be able, whenever He wishes, to afford also 
on earth His presence after that form.’’ In other words, the doctrine of the 
communicatio idiomatwn does not involve the denial of an ordinary local relation 
of our Lord’s body to a heavenly sphere, although it is maintained that the év 
Toic Erovpaviowe implies what transcends all limitations of space. MHarless re- 
fers here, with great approval, to Tholuck on Matt. vi. 9. The term ‘‘ubiquity,’’ 
in this relation as used by Meyer, chap. iv. 10, and foot-note to chap. vi. 31, is 
amisnomer, See Krauth’s Conservative Reformation, p. 495 sq. 


XV. Ver. 23. 70 TAjpapa Tov K.T.A. 


Schmidt inserts in Meyer, 5th ed., the following from Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of 
N. T., IL. 112: «‘ Not only does the church, as the body,stand in need of Christ, as 
the head, but the apostle ventures the bold expression that Christ also needs 
the church, as the body, as that which belongs to His completeness, or makes his 
being first entirely complete.” On this Cremer remarks: ‘‘An ingenious 
thought, but not so true.” 


CHAP. IL 


(Shs) 
Or 
Cr 


CHAPTER IL 


Ver. 1. After duaptiacc, BDEFG 8, min. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. 
Vulg. It. Theodoret, Lucif. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Pel. have juov, which Lachm. 
and Tisch. have rightly received into the text. On account of the redundancy 
of the pronoun and its absence in ver. 5, the omission of it was easier than its 
addition from a comparison of Col]. ii. 13 (in opposition to Reiche), — Ver. 3. 
téxva gvcet] Lachm. and Riick. read g¢vcer téxva, following A DE F GL, min. 
Vulg. It. Or. (once), and other Fathers. But considering how closely réxva dpyje 
go together, the transposition gvce: téxva was so natural, that in opposition to 
these important witnesses the Recepta, attested by B K &, most min. Or. (thrice) 
Chrys. Dam. Theophyl. Oec., is, with Matth. Scholz, Harless, Olsh. de Wette, 
Tisch. [Treg. Hofm. Braune, West. and Hort] to be maintained. — Ver. 11. 
The order woré jueic in Lachm. and Tisch. is justified by A B D* E &* codd. of 
It. and Fathers, More feebly attested is the order éyev. éyytc, ver. 13, in 
Lachm., which weakens the antithesis. — Ver. 12. év t@ xarpw]| év is wanting in 
decisive witnesses. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. Explanatory ad- 
dition. —Ver. 15. év éavré] Lachm. [West. and Hort]: év airé. The wit- 
nesses are greatly divided. But E was ‘easily passed over after Ev. — Ver. 17. 
kat Toi¢] Lachm, Tisch. Riick.: kat cipyvnv totic, according to decisive testimony. 
The emphasis of the repetition of eipyv. was not duly regarded, and so the ap- 
parently redundant word was neglected. For the same reason there was writ- 
ten in ver. 19, instead of the far preponderantly attested a/2’ éoré, simply d”AAa 
(Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 21. mdoa oixod.] Elz. Scholz, Rick. Reiche read rdca 7 
oixod. But the article is wanting in BDEFGKL S* and many min., also 
in Clem. Bas. Chrys. (in the commentary) Theodoret, Oec., and was added (A C, 
Chrys. Theophyl.) because it seemed needed by the sense. See, however, the 
exegetical remarks. 


ConTENTS.—You also, when ye were dead through sins,—as indeed we 
Jewish-Christians too were in the same condition of sin and subjection to 
the divine wrath,—God has by virtue of His love made us alive with 
Christ, raised us and transferred us into heaven, in order, in the world-ages 
to come, to show His grace towards us in Christ (vv. 1-7). For out of 
grace have ye attained to salvation, not through merit of works (vv. 8-10). 
Remember, therefore, that ye were formerly as Gentiles unhallowed and un- 
happy, but now through the death of Christ ye are in quite a different posi- 
tion (vy. 11-18). For Christ has through His death established peace 
between Jews and Gentiles (vv. 14-18). Ye, consequertly, are no longer 
aliens, but fellow-members of the theocracy, members of the houschold of 
God, built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, wherein 
the corner-stone is Christ, in whom every building is built, and ye too, unto 
a holy temple (vv. 19-22). 


356 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Ver. 1. Connection: After Knatchbull and others! had attached kat iuac 
to ele juac Tove miorebovtac, 1. 19, and Bengel to fv évfpy., 1. 20 (both arbitra- 
rily confusing, and the former also mistaken, for the reason that ;juae, ver. 19, 
already included the readers), Lachmann and Harless have closed i, 23 
with only a comma, and annexed «ai (cuvefworoinoe) iudg kai avtov édwxe K.T.A., 
ver. 22.2 So also de Wette, without, however, approving the mere comma 
after i. 28. But in this way we should have to expect not duac, but guae 
(comp. i. 19 : ei¢ quae rode mioretovrac), for Paul would attach to what God 
has done in relation to Christ that which He has at the same time done in 
the euse of the Christians. And, inasmuch as he has employed the pronoun 
of the second person, he has thereby indicated the beginning of a new por- 
tion. 
it is admirably suited for a sonorous conclusion, but hardly for a mere paren- 
thetic insertion. No, after the apostle has previously spoken of the exceed- 
ing power of God in the case of believers, which may be recognized by vir- 
tue of what He has done in the case of Christ, whom He raised, exalted, 
ete., he wishes now, im application of this to the readers, to bring the latter 
to the consciousness that God has made also them («ai iuac), when they were 
dead in their sins, to be alive, ete., with Christ, and thus has shown also in 
their case that exceeding power. — The construction is broken off, even before 
the subject and the verb are expressed, by the afilux of the thoughts in the 
relative clauses which begin ver. 2, but is resumed ver. 4 by means of dé, - 
so that the subject not yet named in ver. 1 is at length named and charac- 
terized in ver. 4 ; and in ver. 5 the verb (cvve(woroiyce) comes in with repe- 
tition of the object, which, however,—in accordance with what has been 
said in the intervening clauses,—had already in ver. 4 passed over into the 
first person and thus become universal (vac). As to the details, see below. 
The resumption accordingly begins already, in ver. 4, with 6 dé Oed¢ ;* not 
first with ver. 5, as Wolf and others, including Griesbach, Koppe, ed. 1, 
Scholz, Meier, Riickert, Holshausen, would have it, because otherwise ver. 
4 in turn would be anacoluthic, and yet 6 Oeéc is the subject of ovveCoor. — 
veKxpod¢e Toi¢ Tapant. K. tT. duapt. iuav] The dative denotes the causa efficiens, 
‘efficient cause,” of the dgath. The expression with év, Col. ii. 13, is not 
equivalent. Quite at variance with the context, Cajetanus* holds that the 
dative is as in Rom. vi. 11, in which case the force of dvra¢ as a present par- 
ticiple is urged : since ye are dead for the sins. \ inév also is against this, as 
well as the plural, since in the being dead for sin the latter appears as prin- 
ciple (Rom. vi. 11).—A real distinction between raparréuara and dpyapriat 
does not exist,® in so far as both expressions denote the same thing (the pee- 


Moreover, i. 23 is so majestic and solemn-in import and form, that 


1 Mentioned by Wolf, Cur. oni. 19 

2 Calovius, Cramer, Koppe, and Rosen- 
miiller attached «at vuas immediately to 
{. 28, namely, to wAnpouperov : qui sicut omnes 
alios beneficiis cumulat, sic etiam vos,” 
‘ who, just as he loadens all others with his 
favors, so also loadens you,’’? Rosenmiiller, 
This, however, is entirely incompatible with 
the correct explanation of rod Ta mavta ev 


maou rAynpovmevov, i. 23, and with the corre- 
lation of vexpovs and ovvegwor, 

3.As even Theophylact expressly ob- 
serves. 

4Not Estius, who reects this explana- 
tion. 

5 Augustine, ad Lev. qu. 20, makes the 
former denote the desertio boni, *“* desertion 
of good,” the latter the perpetratio mali, 


CHAP. Li, 1. 307 
cata actualia, ‘‘ actual sins,” in thought, word, and deed) in a twofold form 
of conception as ‘‘ missing” and ‘‘ fall ;”? and the abstract aywapriace cannot 
mean, like 7 duapria at Rom. v. 20, sin in abstracto, ‘‘in abstract,” as ruling 
power, but in virtue of the plural can only mean the actual sins (auaptAuara) ; 
comp. on Rom. v. 20.?—dvrac] state, which was present at the time, when 
God made them alive. —vexpoic] is understood by the expositors (apart 
from those who, like Koppe and Rosenmiiller, substitute for the literal 
meaning the notion of wretched, miserable) of spiritual death (comp. v. 14), 
d.e., of the deadness of true moral life through the ‘‘ alienatio animae a Deo,” 
‘alienation of mind from God,” Calvin.*? But by what, we ask, is this 
spiritual sense indicated ? Must not vexp. roi¢ mapart. x. taic duapt. have 
reminded the readers quite naturally and necessarily of the connection, well 
known to them, between unexpiated sins and the eternal death (the eternal 
condemnation),—a connection, in which they once as Gentiles shared ? See 
on Rom. vi. 16, 22 f., vii. 9-11, 24, viii. 2,6. [See Note XVL., p. 398.] The 
explanation of physical death is inadmissible, because this is a consequence 
not of individual sins, but of the sin of Adam; see on Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. 
xv. 22. The expression vexpot is proleptic: when ye were dead through 
your sins, ¢.e., when you had through your sins drawn upon you death, had 
become Jiable to eternal death, so that in this way the certo morituri, ‘‘ those 
who are surely to die,” are designated as vexpot. Comp. Rom. vii. 10, viii. 
10, and the well-known ywuydprov ci Bacrdfov vexpdv, ‘* you are a soul carrying 
a dead body,” Epict. Anton. iv. 41. See also on Col. ii. 12. Without 
Christ, the everlasting death, which they had incurred by their sins, would 
not be annulled and averted from them ; but, after that Christ has com- 
pleted the work of atonement and they have become believers in Him, eter- 
nal life has become the portion of those who were by their sins liable to 
eternal death, and that by means of the fellowship of life, into which they 
are brought through faith with the Christ who is made alive from the dead, 
raised, and exalted to heaven, which is more fully expressed, vv. 5, 6, by 
ovvelworoincs TH XpiotG x.t.A. Thus the passage certainly treats of the atone- 
ment accomplished by Christ, to which believers owe eternal life (see vv. 7, 
8). The moral restoration* is the consequence of the atonement (ver. 10), 
the ethical produce of the same through the Spirit. — The relation, we may 
add, of our passage to Col. ii. 13 andi. 21 is not that of a servile depend- 
ence, but that of afresh and living remembrance, with new and peculiar 
amplification. 


““perpetration of evil,” or the former to be 
the sin of rashness, the latter that which is 
deliberate, which last distinction is adopt- 
ed also by Tittmann, Synon. p. 47. Jerome 
makes the former deélicta cogitatione in- 
choata, *‘ offences begun in thought,” the 
latter sins of deed ; comp. Olshausen. Ben- 
gel: waparr. applies to the Jews, and auapr. 
to the Gentiles. Meier (comp. Baumgarten- 
.Crusius): the two words are distinguished 
as act and staée. Matthies: the former are 


mental errors and obscurations, the latter 
moral sins and vices. Harless and de 
Wette : the former denotes single transqres- 
sions, the latter all kinds of sins, including 
sins in ¢hought. 

1See, generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 
p. 324. 

2 See Note VITI. on chap. i. 7. 

3 Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 127. 

4 Hofmann. 


358 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Ver. 2. Shadows before the light which arises in ver. 4. — év aic] domain, 
in which, etc. Itis the pre-Christian sphere of life, and then follows (xara 
x.t.A.) the normal standard which rules in it. «ic has shaped itself after 
the gender of the last substantive, but embraces both.! — xara rv aiava tow 
Kdopwov tovrov| according to the age of this world, i.e., as was in keeping with 
the period of time appointed for the present world (subsisting up to the 
Parousia). For immorality is the characteristic of this world-period (Rom. 
xii. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 12) in contrast to the future new world, in 
which dvxacocivy bears sway, and the nearer the Parousia, the more the aiév 
is rovnpdg (see on Gal. i. 4 ; comp. ver. 16, and on vi. 13). Others explain 
aiov as life ;® for which Riickert—who, in a strangely erroneous way, explains 
it as equivalent to kara Tov aidva rovTov Tov Kéouov—and Matthies put : spirit 
of the time, and Olshausen : tendency of the time ; comp. Bleek. But, however 
current aidy in the signification of life may be in classical Greek, especially 
in Homer, Pindar, Herodotus, and the tragic poets,* yet in the N. T., often 
as the habitually used word recurs, it is never so employed, but always in 
the signification of juncture of time, age. The shift to which Koppe has 
recourse,‘ that aiév and xécpoc are synonymous—hence Koppe makes 6 aiay 
rou Kécuov TobTov equivalent to 6 kécjwo¢c ovroc—stands on a level with the ca- 
pricious inversion of Bretschneider, who makes it tantamount to 6 kéopog Tod 
aidvog TovTov : homines pravi ut nune sunt, ‘‘ wicked men as they now are.” 
No, Paul might have written briefly cata tov aiéva rovrov (comp. 1. 21) ; but, 
in accordance with the graphic amplification of the passage carrying such 
terrible emphasis, he has paraphrased this rotrov by rov kéouov tobrov. Accord- 
ing to Beausobre and Michaelis (‘‘the God of this world”), aldv rod xkéopov 
rovrov is meant to denote the devil in polemic reference to the Gnostic doc- 
trine of aeons (see what follows). According to Baur, p. 483 f., the expres- 
sion itself is a Gnostic one, equivalent to the xocuoxpatwp (comp. vi. 12), and 
denoting the devil. But this is imported, inasmiuch as the explanation of 
aiév in the sense usual in the N. T. yields quite a Pauline thought.. The 
devil appears only in what follows, and would, if he was to be designated 
already here, and that as Lord of the pre-Messianic period, have been desig- 
nated, as at 2 Cor. iv. 4, as 6 @ed¢ tod aidvog Tobrov, or in a like concrete 
manner. — xara Tov dpyovra tie éFovolac Tov aépoc| climactic parallel to the pre- 
ceding. ‘‘Sicres fit expressior,” ‘‘ Thus the subject becomes more explicit,” 
Bengel. The opposite is xara Oedv, iv. 24; 2 Cor. vii. 9. Comp. 1 John 
v. 14: Kara 7d AéAnua Tov Ccov. The devil Paul here represents as the ruler 
over the might of the air, in which é£ovcia is collective, denoting the totality 
of the mighty ones (the demons, Matt. xii. 24) concerned.® This éfovaia 
has its seat in the air, which exists between heaven and earth (rod aépoc) ; 
the atmosphere, pertaining, in contrast to the higher pure aiffp,° still to the 


1 See Matthiae, p. 991. Aesch. Prom. 887; Ellendt, Zexw. Soph. I. 
2So also Harless; comp. H. Stephanus: p. 50. 
“secundum eam, quae in hoc mundo est, 4 Comp. Estius and Flatt. 
vivendi rationem,” ‘‘according to that 5 Comp. Lobeck, ad Phyrn. p. 469; Bern- 
mode of life which is in this world,” Cas- hardy, p. 47, 
talio, Beza, Grotius, e¢ al. 5 See Duncan, Lex. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 36. 


3 See Duncan, ed Rost, p. 47; Blomf. ad 


CHAP, IT. 32s 359 
physical realm of earthly things (yij¢ icéuorpoe agp, ‘‘ earth’s equal partner, 
air,” Soph. #7. 87), is the seat, the territory of the might of the demons. 
This and nothing else Paul expresses in distinct words, the évaépio¢ diarpi 37, 
“aerial life,” * the irovpdviog téroc, ‘‘ sub-celestial place,” * of the demons ; 
and neither ought roi aépoc to have been taken* as equivalent to tod oKérove, 
‘‘ darkness” (vi. 12 ; Col. i. 13), because, though it may, as it often does 
in Homer, denote misty gloom, clouds, etc., in contradistinction of the pure 
aiffp, it never takes the place of the absolute cxéroc,tand in the N. T. always 
means simply air; nor ought it to have been explained by a metonymy as 
mundus, ‘‘the world.” °® According to Hahn,® rod aépo¢ is designed to ex- 
press the aeriform nature of the demons ; they are not really spiritual, but 
only spirit-like ; aeriformness is their physical constitution. Thisis already in 
itself incorrect, since the demons must of necessity have the same physical con- 
stitution as the angels (including also their supra-terrestrial corporeity, comp. 
on Matt. xxii.30),and hence, although they have become axd@apra, ‘‘ incorrup- 
tible,” they have yet remained zvetara, see in this very Epistle, vi. 12 (ra rvev- 
patika tHe Tovypiac). Olshausen would remove the demons from the atmosphere 
by taking ap as equivalent to oipavéc,” appealing to 1 Thess. iv. 17 (where, 
however, d7p is nothing else than air), and even giving out this passage as 
the only one in the N. T. where the word afp elsewhere occurs (but see 
Acts xxii. 23 ; 1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9 ;. Rev. ix. 2, xvi. 17). As an equally ex- 
emplary companion-piece of rationalizing artifice may be quoted the inter- 
pretation of Stolz :* ‘‘ We have here to think of the rational beings acting 
and walking wpon the earth, of men, who as sensuous creatures breathe in 
the air, in the atmosphere surrounding the earth.” Hofmann, who else- 
where took ajp erroneously as equivalent to rvevywa, whould now ® not less 
erroneously make tov mvetwaroc dependent upon rod dépoc, and by the latter 
understand the atmosphere formed by the breathing of that rveiua. ‘‘ So long 
as they [the disobedient] allow this spirit to be their spirit, they live in the 
atmosphere thereof, and as it were inhale it—an atmosphere, which is the 
sphere of dominion [the éfoveia] of Satan.” But apart from the clumsy and 
obscure accumulation of three genitives (at 2 Cor. iv. 4, 7, they flow easily 
and clearly one out of the other), there may be urged against this view 
generally the strange awkwardness of the thought (‘‘the air of the spirit 
which worketh in the disobedient is the atmosphere formed by the breath- 
ing of the same spirit’), and more specially the considerations, first, that 


1 Oecumenius, comp. Theophylact. 

2 Chrysostom. 

3 Clericus, Heinsius, Michaelis, 
Flatt, Matthies, and others. 

4 Comp. Buttmann, Lewilog. I. p. 115. 

5 Thomas, Bullinger, and others. 

6 Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 828 f. 

7 He holds that Paul has perhaps employ- 
ed the expression for the purpose of char- 
acterizing the demons as not indeed earth- 
ly, but yet also as not heavenly. He has 
employed the expression, just because he 


Storr, 


conceived of the demons as making their 
abode in the atmosphere. And he does not 
choose a higher expression (as in vi. 12) for 
this sphere, because he wishes here to make 
the reader feel the ower domain of the 
power as opposed to the heavenly domain, 
and thus also the ignominious character of 
the same; hence the expression is neither 
accidental nor strange (in opposition to 
Hofmann). 

8 Hridut. p. 175. 

9 Schriflb. I. p. 457. 


360 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


éfovoia does not mean sphere of dominion ;* secondly, that there is nothing 
to indicate that the ajp originated through the breathing (or blowing) of the 
spirit (we should at least expect the essential rvéovroc instead of évepyobvroc) ; 
thirdly, that, if éfovcia is to denote the sphere of dominion, tye tovoiac 
would be only an ambiguous pleonasm, and we cannot see why Paul should 
not have written merely rv dpyovra tov dépoc x.t.A.—as regards the historic 
basis of the conception of the apostle, that the demons have their abode in 
the air, he has carried it over from his pre-Christian, Jewish-Rabbinic circle of 
ideas into the contents of his Christian belief. It is true that there are 
found among the Rabbins very diverse, confused, and at times very mon- 
strous assertions concerning the dwelling-place of the demons,’ but Harless ° 
far too hastily thence concludes : ‘‘in such sloughs as these one seeks in vain 
Sor the explanation of the apostles expression.” For while there are found 
diverse opinions in the Rabbins, and among them also that which assigns to 
the demons the air as a territory, the expression of the apostle shows us 
which of the different Rabbinic conceptions he has not followed, and which 
is accepted by him. Thus, indeed, e.g., the doctrine which R. Bechai* 
presents as a well-known one, that only those demons which produce dreams 
dwell in the air, but those which seduce man to sin in the man himself, 
and yet others in the depths of the sea, is not the view of the apostle. 
But the belief, which Paul here announces as his own and presupposes in 
his readers, namely, that the demoniac kingdom in general, and not merely 
a single division of it, is in the air, is to be found very definitely preserved 
among the Rabbins also. For (1) the very Rabbinical tenet of the winged 
nature of the demons’ manifestly points to the region of the air as their 
abode, since they are shut out from the communion of God. (2) In partic- 
ular passages this is expressly stated. Comment. in libr. Aboth. f. 83. 2: 
‘‘Sciendum, a terra usque ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et praefec- 
tis, et infra,” ‘‘ It must be known that from earth to the expanse all things are 
full of bands and prefects, and below” (that is precisely in the ayp), ‘‘ pluri- 
mas esse creaturas laedentes et accusantes, et omnes stare ac volitare in 
aére,” ‘‘there are very many creatures injuring and accusing, and that all 
stand and fly in the air,” etc. Further, it is said in Tuf Haarez, f. 9, 2, 
that under the sphere of the moon, which is the last under all, is a firma- 
ment (J”p))... and there are the souls of the devils, etc. Further, R. 
Bechai says, in Pentat. f. 139, 4, where he is explaining how it comes about 
that the demons know what is future: ‘‘ because they dwell in the air 
VSI), ... they learn future things from the princes of the planets.” The 
same R. Bechai, in Pentat. f. 18, 1, relates, as a Rabbinical tradition, that 
Noah had in his ark, according to Gen. vi. 19, preserved devils also, and 
says in confirmation of this exposition : for it would have been impossible 





1 Not even in Luke xxiii. 7, where it ex- 3 Followed by Olshausen. 
presses the idea of governing authority, of 4in Pentat. f. 90, 1. 
jurisdiction. So often in Plutarch, Diodo- 5 Talmud, Chagig. 2; R. Eliezer in Bar- 
rus, ete. toloce. I. p. 820 ff., ad. 

2 See, especially, Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. ® See Eisenmenger, II. p. 411. 


Judenth. Il. p. 487 ff. 


CHAP El yn. 361 


for them to remain in their own place, which is the air (SN Sw OOp3).* 
The assertion, too, of R. Menasseh, in Eisenmenger, II. p. 456 f., that the 
rising smoke of the incense which was offered to the devils was their food, 
points to the air as their dwelling-place; as, indeed, according to the Cab- 
bala (Cabb. denud. I. p. 417), the demons dwell ‘‘below the upper sanc- 
tuary.”° Thus much, consequently, is clear and transparent enough in the 
“¢ muddy sloughs” of Rabbinical tradition, that the kingdom of the demons 
was located in the air ; and with this we find the apostle in agreement. 
Hence we have no right to deny that he has retained this conception from 
the sphere of his Rabbinical training, but at the same time it would be 
quite unwarrantable to attribute to him the singularities associated with this 
tenet by the Rabbins, since, in fact, he asserts nothing more than that the 
devilish powers are in the air. Thisisa simple historical statement, in which, 
we may add, it is quite arbitrary to discern a ‘‘ profound hint,” namely, of 
their dismal and spectral nature (in opposition to Schenkel). The right 
explanation is given also by Schmid, Bibl. Theol. § 86, and Bleek. Among 
the Pythagoreans, too, we meet with an analogous view ;* but quite unfound- 
ed is the assertion of Wetstein : ‘‘P. ita loquitur ex principiis philoso- 
phiae Pythagoreae, quibus illi, ad quos scribit, imbuti erant,” ‘‘ Paul thus 
speaks ‘according to the principles of the Pythagorean philosophy, with 
which they to whom he writes were imbued.” Paul presupposes in his 
readers an acquaintance with his expression as the expression of Ais doctrine, 
and speaks so emphatically and solemnly that any sort of accommodation is 
not to be thought of. [See Note XVII., p. 399.]— ov rvetuaroc] is still 
dependent on rév apyovra, so that the power over which the devil rules, 
after being designated as regards its outward existence by the phrase éfovciag 
Tov aépoc, is now designated as regards its active operation in men’s hearts, 
namely, as the spirit which is at work in the disobedient. This rveiua, of which 
Satan is the ruler, is not, however, to be thought of as being the human 
mind, since, thus understood, it would not suit as apposition to the rie 
é£ovoiac Tov aépoc, Which is different from the human individuality, as, indeed, 
Tov évepy. «.T.A. points to an agent different from the human individual ; 
but rather as the principle proceeding from its apyor, the devil, and passing 
over into men to become operative in their hearts—the antithesis of the Holy 
Spirit which proceeds from God. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 12. This rveiwa is, in 
contrast to 76 rveva THC aAnOeiac, the rveiua tHe TAdvyc, 1 John iv. 6. It is 
not, however, ‘‘ odd,” 4 nor is it ‘‘ unnatural,” ° to speak of a ‘‘ ruler of this 


1Comp. Nishmath chasim, f. 115, 2. firmament where the Prince of this world 


2 With this Rabbinical view agrees also 
Test. XII. Patr. p. 729: vrd tod aepiov mvev- 
faTos Tov BeArap, Where aéprov means 10 be 
Sound in the air. See Plat. Hpin. p. 948 D: 
Saisovas, aéprov dé yevos. Comp. Zest. XI. 
Patr. p. 547. If we take aépios in such pas- 
sages as aeriform (Hahn), we confound it 
with aépevos (Arist. de Anim. iii. 138; Metaph. 
ix. 7). Comp. rather, Ascens. Isa. 10: ‘‘de- 
scendit in firmamentum, ubiprinceps hujus 
mundi habitabat,’’ ‘‘ He descended into the 


dwelt.’’ 

3 Diog. Laert. viii. 32: kara rov ev Uv ddyo- 
pay clvat Te mavTa TOV aépa Wuyav EurAcov, Kai 
TOUTOUS Salmovas TE Kal Hpwas voutcerdat, ‘* AC- 
cording to Pythagoras, all the air is full of 
spirits, and these are considered demons 
and heroes,’? and compare the other pas- 
sages in Wetstein, and Elsner, p. 206; 
Dougt. Anal. p. 127. 

4 de Wette. 

5 Bleek. 


362 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


spirit ;” but this is quite analogous to the conception, according to which 
Christ is spoken of as ‘‘ Lord of the Holy Spirit” (2 Cor. iii. 18). We have 
further not to understand rot rvetjpuaroc collectively ;1 for the éovoia rev aépoc 
is, indeed, the sum total of the plurality of the demons, but thesspirit, 
which is brought by its ruler, the devil, into the hearts of men and operates 
within them, is in all viol r#¢ azec#. one and the self-same spirit, just as the 
Holy Spirit is in all individuals who believe one and the same. Others 
regard rot mvetuatoc aS apposition to tov apy. tT. éove. tT. aép., in that they 
either assume the use of an abnormal case occasioned by a deviation from 
the construction (genitive for accusative), as Piscator, Calovius, Semler, 
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, de Wette, Bleek, or look upon the genitive 
as one of apposition to tov dpyovra, as Flatt. But how purely arbitrary is 
the former ! and how impossible the latter, since tov dpyovra, in accord- 
ance with its significance, demands a defining genitive, and already has it in 
tHe éfovo. T. dép., and consequently tov mveiuatoc cannot be taken in any 
other relation !—viv] is emphatic,—not, however, as Meier supposes: ? 
‘* even now, when it is so powerfully counteracted by the gospel,” which 
must have been expressed by kai viv; * but viv stands opposed to the preced- 
ing woré, when the diabolic zvetua was active in all, even in the readers. 
Comp. ver. 3. Riickert + thinks of the extraordinary, especially dangerous 
power which the Satanic kingdom developed just at the time of the redemp- 
tion (2 Thess. 1. 2 ff.); so also de Wette. But that could not be under- 
stood from the simple évepy., and would have required the addition of a 
mepicootépwc, bTepBarAdvroc, ‘‘ extraordinarily, exceedingly,” or the like. Ac- 
cording to Olshausen, viv is to be held as opposed to the future age, and to 
make the diabolic activity appear as limited, in contrast to the everlasting, 
divine activity of the Holy Spirit. But a contrast to the aidy péAAov is not 
at all implied in the context ; indeed, it was entirely self-evident that the 
Satanic activity extends only to the time before the Parousia ; how then 
could it occur to a reader to find in the viv a negation of the aidv péAAwv ? 
— év toi¢ vioic ti¢ arev0.] in their souls. The expression vio? 7. amei#. is He- 
braizing,® and denotes the dependence which has its basis in the relation of 
the person or thing concerned to the genitive-noun, here the genesis of the 
spiritual condition, so that roic é& azefeiac (comp. Rom. ii. 8) would signify 
the same thing. Comp. Winer, p. 213. The opposite is réxva brakoje, 
1 Pet. i. 14. By azeifeca, however, is not meant unbelief; ® for this could 
only be logically included under the notion of disobedience as refusal 
of belief, consequently as opposite to the traxoy miotewe (Rom. i. 5 ; Heb. 
iv. 6, 11; and see Fritzsche on Rom. xi. 30). And with that sense in the 
present case the following év aic¢ kal jucig mavreg would be at variance, 


1 Vatablus, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Mi-  ¢wypddwv, ‘‘sons of Achaeans, children of 


chaelis, Holzhausen. painters,” and the like, but not with 
2 Comp. Zanchius. abstract nouns; see Blomfield, Gloss. Pev's. 
3 As Ignat. ad Smyrn. interp. 7. 408, p. 188; Stallb. ad Plat. Phil. p. 107. 
4 Comp. Bengel and Holzhausen. ®6Luther, Bengel, Koppe, Harless, and 


5 For among Greek writers arefoundonly others. 
such expressions as vies “Ayatwv, matdes 


CHAP. Iho: 363 


since not all Jewish-Christians had, like Paul, resisted the faith. Now, as 
Paul is speaking only of the immorality of the unbelievers (vv. 1, 8), ameiHeca 
is here the want of compliance towards God (Rom. xi. 30), é.e., towards 
His revealed and natural law respectively (Rom. ii. 8 ff.), displaying itself 
through their immoral conduct. 

Ver. 3. After the apostle has just depicted the pre-Christian corruption of 
the readers, who were Gentile- Christians, the sinful corruptness of all—this 
basis for his enthusiastic certainty of the universality of the redemption 
(omeide 11.24, 11. 19; 28, xi. 82; Gal. ii. 16, 16, i, 22, a.)—pre- 
sents itself at the same time with such vividness before his mind, that he now 
also includes with the others the whole body of the Jewish- Christians («ai mete 
mavrec) in the same state of corruption, and accordingly, on the resumption of 
the argument at ver. 4, he cannot again employ the second person introduced 
in ver. 1, but must change this into yuac. Inasmuch as kai jueic, we also, 
must necessarily denote the class falling to be added to imac, ver. 1, we cannot 
understand by it the Christians generally ;1 but, since the ipeic¢ are Gentile- 
Christians, we must take it to mean the Jewish-Christians. The general 
moral description which follows is not opposed to this view,” since it was 
the very object of the apostle to delineate the essential equality in the moral 
condition of both. Comp. Rom. i. 2, 8. De Wette explains it quite arbi- 
trarily : ‘‘we also, who have been already a considerable time Christians.” — év 
oi¢] is not to be referred to roic xapartéuars, ver. 1,4 for that reference is 
not to be supported by Col. iii. 7, but, on the contrary, is impossible with 
the reading iuav after dyapz., ver. 1, and is, moreover, to be rejected, 
because Paul has not again written év aic, and because reference to the 
nearest subject is altogether suitable ; for the Jewish-Christians also all 
walked once among the disobedient, as belonging to the ethical category of 
the same, inasmuch as they likewise before their conversion were through 
their immoral walk disobedient towards God (Rom. ii. 17 ff., 25, iii. 9 ff.). 
— éy taic éxibvu. tie capKdc¢ ju.| More precise definition to what has just been 
said év oi¢ . . . dvectpadyuev roré, denoting the immoral domain of the pre- 
Christian state,* in which this walk took place, namely, in the desires of our 
corporeo-psychical human nature, whose impulses, adverse to God, had not 
yet experienced the overcoming influence of the Holy Spirit (Rom. vii. 
14 ff., viii. 7 ; Gal. v.17 ; Rom. viii. 2, a/.), and hence rendered ineffectual 
the moral volition directed towards the divine law (Rom. vii. 17-20). The 
opposite is: mvetyate repirareiv (kal éxiOvuiay capKo¢e py Tereiv), Gal. v. 16 ; 
comp. Rom. viii. 13. — ro.oivrec x.7.4.] 80 that we, ete., now specifies the way 
and manner of this walk, wherein the prefixed rovivrec has the emphasis, in 
that it predicates what they did, as afterwards juev, what they were. The 
Gedjuara (comp. on the plural, Acts xiii, 22; Jer. xxiii. 26 ; 2 Macc. i. 3) 


1 Estius, Koppe, and others. wanting to him. 

2 As de Wette objects. 4Peshito, Jerome, Grotius, Estius, Ben- 

3m doing which Paul could, least of all, gel, Baumgarten, Koppe, Rosenmiiller. 
venture to except himself, although, ac- 592 Cor. i. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 18; comp. Xen. 


cording to Phil. iii. 6, the justitia externa, ~ Ages. ix. 4; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 865 E; Polyb. 
“outward righteousness,’”? had not been Teel tals 


364 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


are here in reality not different from the ér#vuia:, which, however, are con- 
ceived of as activities of the will, that take place on the part of the cdpé and 
the didvocae (both conceived of under a personified aspect as the power ruling 
the ego of the unconverted man). As regards rév diavoov, which stands re- 
lated to rjc capxéc as the special to the general, the bad connotation is not 
implied in the plural, as Harless conjectures (who finds therein ‘ fluctuating, 
changing opinions’’), but in the context, which makes us think of the unholy 
thoughts,' whose volitions were directed to evil, in the state of disobedience. 
Comp. Num. xv. 39: pvyobjocote macav THv évToAdyv Kvpiov Kai wolhoeTe avTac, 
kai ov dlvactpagjoecie bricw TOV diavoiov buov, ‘* Remember all the command- 
ments of the Lord and do them ; and that ye seek not ;” also Jer. xxiii. 26; 
Isa. lv. 9 (ra dvavojuara), where likewise the prejudicial connotation lies not 
in the plural, but in the connection. — kai juev téxva dicer opygc| Instead of 
continuing the construction in uniformity with zovivrec by nai évrec, the 
apostle passes over, as at 1. 20 (see on that passage), emphatically into the 
oratio finita, depicting, after the immoral mode of action, the unhappy con- 
dition in which withal we found ourselves. The fact that on this account 
jucv is prefized has been left unnoticed, and hence xa? juev has been either 
tacitly (so usually) or expressly ? connected with év oi¢ . . . aveozvp. Harless 
[also Hofm. Braune, Ewald] regards the words as only a supplemental and 
more exact definition and modification of the thought expressed immediately 
before ; but in that case an isolation of the words is needlessly assumed, and 
likewise the correlation of the prefixed verbs rovoivrec and juev is overlooked. 
— réxva opyye are children of wrath (comp. on ver. 2), that is, however, not 
merely those worthy of wrath,* which relation of dependence is not in keeping 
with the context, but, as vexpod¢ toic mapant. shows, ver. 1, subject to wrath, 
érae obnoxii, standing under wrath (comp. v. 8 ; Matt. xxiii. 15 ; John xvii. 
12). So most expositors rightly take it. To whose wrath they were subject, 
Paul does not indicate (for he does not write r7c opy7c, comp. Rom. xii. 19), 
but (comp. Rom. iv. 15) he leaves it to the reader to say for himself that it 
is God’s wrath he has to think of (see ver. 4). As to the wrath of God,— 
which here, too, is not to be understood merely of that of the future judg- 
ment,*—the holy emotion of absolute displeasure at evil, which is neces- 
sarily posited by absolute love to the good, and is thus the necessary prinei- 
ple of temporal and eternal punishment on the part of God (not the punish- 
ment itself), comp. on Rom. i. 18. — deer] dative of the more precise mode 
(=cara giow), may either attach itself merely to réxva (not to jer), so that 
the idea expressed is : nature-children, téxva ovotxa dpyp¢ 3° or it May more 
precisely define the whole notion réxva dpyze, thus : wrath-children by nature, 
Téxva opyn¢ gvoud ; So that the réxva dpy., like viot r. arevGeiac, ver. 2, forms a 


17That these were selfish, is in itself cor- 3 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
rect, but is not implied in the word itself, Theophylact, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, and 
and is not expressed by Paul (in opposition others. 
to Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 563). 4 Ritschl, de tra Dei, p. 17. 

2 As by Fritzsche, Conject. p. 45, who takes 5 See on such datives joined on to nouns. 
€v Tals emidum, THS TAaPKdS HOY TOLOUYTES K.T.A. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 688 ; Heind. ad Cratyl, 
together as one clause. p. 181. 


CHAPS Di oc 365 
single idea. The latter is the correct view, because réxva is used figuratively 
and receives the real contents of the conception only by means of épyzc, for 
which reason it is not tobe thought of as separated therefrom.’ The notion 
of gioec must obtain its more precise definition solely from the context, as to 
whether, namely, it betoken an innate relation, *—whether it be consequently 
equivalent to yevéce:, and the sonship of wrath be éudvroc, a qualitas innata, 
‘‘implanted an innate quality,” °— or, on the other hand, a relation brought 
about by development of a nativa indoles, ‘‘ native disposition,” one that has 
been produced by virtue of natural endowment.* In the latter sense David is 
said by Josephus, Avét. vii. 7. 1, to have been gicec Jixatoc cai OeoaeBje, ‘by 
nature just and religious ;” comp. xiii. 10. 6. Philo, de conf. lingu. p. 827E : 
dvtiAoyixol dboet, ‘by nature contradictory,” Xen, Oec. xx. 25 : gboe gudoy- 
ewpyératoc, ‘‘ by nature most fond of country life,” Plut. Artaz. 6 : gicex 
BaptOvuoc ovca, ‘‘ by nature being sullen,” Arist. Polit.i.1. 9 : dvOpwroc gbcer 
modtiKov Coov, ‘* man by nature a political animal,” and many others. Ac- 
cording to this view, jyev réxva ioe opyz¢ Would have to be paraphrased by: 
Huev, TH Pose ypynoauevor, téxva opyg¢. From early times® the word in our 
passage has been employed in defence of original sin as an inborn condition 
of culpability (inborn peccatum vere damnans, ‘‘ sin truly condemning”), as in- 
deed even Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Usteri,* Julius Miller, Lechler, Phil- 
ippi, Thomasius, and others have understood an inborn childship of wrath. 
“Paulus nos cum peccato gigni testatur, quemadmodum serpentes suum ven- 
enum ex utero afferunt,” ‘‘ Paul testifies that we are born with sin, as serpents 
bring from the womb their poison,” Calvin. ‘‘Hoe uno verbo, quasi ful- 
mine, totus homo, quantus est, prosternitur ; neque enim naturam dicit 
-laesam, sed mortuam per peccatum ideoque irae obnoxiam,” ‘‘ By this one 
word, as by a thunderbolt, the entire man, however great he is, is prostrated ; 
for he does not say that nature is injured, but is dead by sin, and therefore 
subject to wrath,” Beza.” But (1) the context points, in vv. 1-3, as again also 


1 According to this view, there is here in in loc., and Loesner, p. 340 f. 


the position of the words a severance 
(Kijibner, I. p. 627) whereby the genitive is 
separated from its governing word (Buttm. 
neut. Gr. p. 382 [E. T. 387]). This hyperba- 
ton has for its object the reserving of the 
whole emphasis for the closing word épyjs, 
and letting it fall thereon. Comp. Philem. 
Sragm. p. 354, ed. Cleric.: toAAoy dvaer tots 
Tac aitia ckaxav, ‘‘ by nature, the cause of 
many evils to all.” 

2 Asin Gal. ii. 15 ; Xen. Mem.i. 4.14; Dem. 
1411 ult.; Soph. Aj. 1280; O. C. 1297; Isoce. 
vag. 16: 74 wév yap jv dvoe. watpis, tov 6& 

. YOR ToAtTHY emeTOLnvTO ; Specially in- 
structive are Plat. Prot. p. 323 C D, Dem. 
Cie Ste 

3 Wisd. xii. 10, comp. xiii. 1, and thereon 
Grimm, Handb. p. 233. 

4 As Rom. ii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 14; Xen. Mem. 
i. 2.14, iv. 1.3; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 777 D; Ael. 
V.7. ii. 13. 3, xxii. 9.13 see also Wetstein 


5 See, already, Augustine, Refract. i. 10. 
15 ; de verb. ap. 14. 

® Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 30, we may add, 
suspects the genuineness of vce, partly on 
account of its alleged singular position, 
partly on account of the various readings. 
But as regards the position, see above. And 
of Various readings there are none at all, 
since different translations are not various 
readings. dvceu is omitted only in 109, Aeth. 
No doubt Clem. Alex. ad Gent. (Opp. ed. 
Pott, p. 23) is also adduced, where the pas- 
sage is cited without dvce. But in Clem. 
d.c. (comp. p. 560) we have no citation. but 
merely a free use of the passage, from 
which the existence of variations cannot be 
made good. Clement, we may add, singu- 
larly explains téxva opyjs by tpepopeva opy7n, 
opyis Upeupara, 

7 Comp. Form. Cone. p. 639 f. 


366 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


in ver. 5, to an actually produced, not to an inborn state of guilt.1 Further, 
(2) if Paul had wished, after touching on the sinful action, to bring into 
prominence the inborn state of culpability, and so had taken the course ab 
effectu ad causam, ‘‘ from the effect to the cause,” gicec would have an em- 
phasis, which would make its critically assured position, as it stands in the 
Recepta, appear simply inappropriate ; in fact, not even the position in 
Lachmann (jev dbcee réxva opyjc¢) would be sufficiently in keeping, but we 
should be obliged logically to expect: kal bce juev téxva opyyc, *‘ and 
(already) by birth were we children of wrath,” in which would lie the 
source of sinful action. But (8) the ecclesiastical dogma, that man is a born 
subject of wrath, from birth an object of the divine condemnation, is not at 
all a doctrine of the apostle, according to whom man by his actwal sin falls 
under the wrath of God (Rom. i. 18, ii. 8, 9, vii. 7 f., al.), inasmuch, 
namely, as he becomes subject to and follows the inborn principle of sin 
(Rom. vii. 14 ff.), in opposition to his moral will, which he likewise by na- 
ture bears in himself ; in connection with which, we may add, bodily death 
has its causal basis not in the individual sin of the particular persons, but in 
the connection of the whole race with the fall and death-penalty of its first 
progenitor (see on Rom. v. 12). And (4) how could Paul, speaking of the 
Jews, predicate of them an inborn childship of wrath, when he regarded them 
aS KAddoue dyiove THe pi<ne ayiac (Rom. xi. 16) ! They were in fact oi xara dbow 
KAddoe of the sacred olive-tree of the theocracy (Rom. xi. 21) ; how could 
they be at the same time the opposite (observe the xara gow), born réxva 
opyj7¢ 2? See also Gal. ii. 15, where the ¢ice Iovdaioe are opposed to the é& 
éOvov duaptwroi,® as well as Rom. ix. 4, where of them is predicated the pos- 
session of the viofecia, consequently the type of the Christian childship of 
God, whereof the inborn childship of wrath would be the direct opposite.* 
Several have found in ¢ice: the sense: ‘‘ apart from the special relation in 
which they as Israelites stood to God ;”* but this is just a mere saving 
clause obtruded on the text, in connection with which there is nevertheless 
retained the un-Pauline conception of born liability to wrath, consequently 
of condemnation from the very jirst, without any personal participation and 
contracting of guilt, before one yet knows sin (Rom. vii. 7).° Further, (5) 
if Paul had thought of an inborn liability to wrath, he could not have re- 
garded even the children of Christians as holy and pure (1 Cor. vii. 14) ; and 
infant baptism must have been already ordained in the N. T., and that, in- 
deed, with the absolute necessity, which had to be subsequently assigned to 


1 Quite mistakenly Grotius argues from 
the context against the ecclesiastical ex- 
position in this way: ‘‘ Non agi hic de labe 
originaria, satis ostendunt praecedentia, 
ubi describuntur vitia, a quibus multi veteram 
Juere immunes,” ‘That here the original 
fall is not treated of, is sufficiently shown 
by what precedes, where vices are described 
from which many of the ancients were 
free.’’ See, on the other hand, Rom. i.-iii., 
Xi. 82; Gal. iii. 22, ad. 

2 Which Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 564 


(comp. his Heil. Schr. N. T. Il. 1, p. 24), de- 
nies on invalid linguistic grounds; see on 
Gal. l.c. 

3 See, generally, on the sanctity of the 
people of God, Ewald, Alterth. p. 262 ff. 

4 Thomasius, I. p. 289. 

5 This remark also holds in opposition to 
the esgentially similar interpretation in 
Hofmann, p. 565, comp. Schmid, bibl. Theol. 
II. p. 274, and Julius Miller, v. d. Stinde, 
p. 377 f. 


CHAP. IL., 3. 367 
it in consistency with the elaboration of the dogma of original sin bringing 
eternal condemnation on every one born by ordinary generation. The ex- 
planation of an inborn state of wrath (which also doesnot tally with the fact 
that Jesus promises the kingdom of heaven to those who should be like 
children, Matt. xviii. 2 f., xix. 14 f.) is accordingly to be rejected as opposed 
to the context and un-Pauline ; and gice defines the childship of wrath to the 
effect, that it has arisen in virtue of natural constitution (observe the just- 
mentioned ér@vuiae ri¢ capxéc, comp. the véuo¢ év toie wédect, Which overcomes 
the moral law in man, Rom. vii. 238, 24). [See Note XVIIL, p. 899.] Cer- 
tainly man is berm with this natural, sinful quality, z.¢., with the principle of 
sin, by the awakening and development of which the moral willis vanquished 
(Rom. vii. ; comp. also John iii. 6) ; it is not, however, the mere fact of 
this inborn presence having its basis in his odpé, that in and of itself! makes 
him the child of wrath,’ but he only becomes so, when that constitution of 
his moral nature, that mingling of two opposite principles in his natural dis- 
position, has—which, however, is the case with every one (Rom. ili. 9, xi. 
32 ; Gal. iii. 22)—brought about the victory of the sin-principle, and there- 
with the capxixév and rerpapévov br6 THY duaprtiay civa: (Rom. vii. 14). Others, 
such as Erasmus, Balduin, Bengel, Morus, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Matthies, de 
_ Wette, Bleek,* have explained it of the so-called natural state of man, i.e., of 
the state of the pre-Christian life, which was as yet aloof from the influence 
of yapec (ver. 5 ff.) and of the Holy Spirit ; but in this way, properly speak- 
ing, nothing is explained ; for while the whole description, and not merely 
gvcer, delineates ‘‘the natural state in which the redemptive activity of God 
found the nations,” ° in connection with gice there always remains the special 
question, whether the ‘‘by nature” denotes an inborn relation to wrath or 
not. Holzhausen would even combine ¢ice opyz¢ (‘‘ wrath which comes from 
the ungodly nature-life”’),—a view from which, even if ¢iove meant nature- 
life, the very absence of any article ought in itself to have precluded him ; 
Tie TH Poet opyye, OY THe EK THC dbo. dpygc, or the like, must have been used. 


1 The objection of Lechler, p. 107 (comp. see, exegetically incompatible with the anthro- 


Philippi, Dogm. III. p. 205 f.)—that my ex- 
planation, inasmuch as the sinful disposi- 
tion is inborn, thereby after all concedes the 
traditional Church-view—overlooks the es- 
sential distinction, that it is only accord- 
ing to the latter that man is vorn as object 
of the divine wrath ; whereas, according to 
my view, the natural disposition to sin does 
not yet in and by itself make him such 
an object of wrath, but he becomes so only 
through the setting in of actual sin, which, 
it is true, does not fail to emergein any one 
who lives long enough to be adie to sin. 
According to the traditional view, even the 
newly-born unconscious child is already 
guilty and liable to the Divine wrath; so 
that in this way the imputation attaches it- 
self not merely to the perpetration of sin, 
but even to the occasion to sin, which every 
one has by nature. This is, so far as I can 


pological teachings of the apostle else- 
where, especially with his exposition in 
Rom. vii. 7 f. Only with the actual sin, ac- 
cording to Paul, is the guilt connected, and 
consequently the wrath of God. An inborn 
guilt is not taught by the apostle; as is 
rightly brought out by Ernesti, but is only 
hesitatingly hinted at by Bleek. 

2 Comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T.p. 207. 

3 Through Christian regeneration the 
moral will attains, by virtue of the Spirit 
(Rom. viii. 2), the ascendancy in man, and 
he becomes therewithal qualitatively Seas 
Kowvwvos dvcews, 2 Pet. i. 4, and metadAapBavov 
THs aylwTyTos TOV cod, Heb. xii. 10. Comp. 
1 John vy. 18. 

4Comp. also Weber, vom Zorn Gottes, 
p. 88. 

5 de Wette. 


568 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Moreover, Cyril, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Grotius, erroneously hold gice 
as equivalent to a/7jGo¢ (comp. others in Jerome, who take it as prorsus), 
which it never is, not even in Gal. iv. 8, to which Grotius appeals. Lastly, 
in a quite peculiar way Ernesti’ obtains the exact opposite of a born Hiabil- 
ity to wrath by conducting his interpretation so as to enclose réxva @boer 
within two commas, and to connect dpyj¢ with juev : ‘‘ We were in conse- 
quence of our actual sinfulness, although children [ot God in the Israelitish 
sense, Rom. ix. 4] by nature, liable to wrath even as the Gentiles ;” according 
to which, therefore, juev dpyg¢ is explained from the well-known usage of 
eivai Tuvog in the sense of ‘‘ belonging to.” But it may be decisively urged 
against this view, first, that the supplying the thought of Ocoi after réxva (as 
Isa. xii. 8 ; Rom. vill. 17 ; Gal. iv. 6) is not in any way suggested by the 
context, but is purely arbitrary, and the more so, inasmuch as there is already 
in the text a genitive which offers itself to complete the notion of réxkva ; and 
secondly, that there is nothing to indicate the contrast assumed by Ernesti 
(although, etc.), for in order to write in some measure intelligibly, Paul 
must at least have said : cai quer réxva piv dioer, opy7c 6é, although this, too, 
on account of the absence of a definition to réxva, would have been enigmat- 
ic enough. Equally to be rejected is the quite similar interpretation of 
Nickel,’ who explains as though the words ran : kai juev Ocod pév Téxva baEL, 
opyne dé réxva, ‘* We were, on the one hand, by nature God’s children ; on the 
other, children of wrath.” —éc¢ kai oi Aouroi] sc. Yoav. The Aouroi are the Gen- 
tiles (Rom. iii. 9 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13), and «ai is not adhuc (Grotius), but the 
also of comparison. 

Ver. 4. Now begins, after the intervening clauses, vv. 2, 3, the resump- 
tion, and that with the subject, which Paul already had in mind at ver. 1. 
See on ver. 1. It is not, however, by oiv, but by dé, that the thought is 
taken up again, because that which is now to be spoken of (the abundant 


compassion of God) stands in an adversative relation to what has been said. 


in the relative clauses.* — riobovc dv év éAéer x.7.4.] The connection is : God, 
however, since He is rich in mercy, has for His much love's sake made . . . Us 

. alive in Christ. As to the distinction between éAcoc and oixtipudc, see 
on Rom. ix. 15. On ép éAéex, comp. 1 Cor. i. 5; Jas. ii. 5; 2) Comix dies 
1 Tim. vi. 18. — dia tiv roAa. aydérnv abrod] namely, in order to satisfy it.* 
Luther erroneously renders : through His great love. The Vulgate, rightly: 
propter, etc. Comp. Philem. 8. We may add that not airod is to be 
written, but airod, as at i. 6. — qv gyda. jul] as in John xvii. 26. Comp. 
the classical épwra épav, Lobeck, Paral. p. 516. The manifestation of the 
divine love thereby meant is the atoning death of Christ, in which, in pur- 
suance of the abundance of the divine compassion, the great love of God 
communicated itself to us. Rom. v.18; Johniii. 16 ; Eph. v. 2, 25. —quéac] 
After the glance has extended from the readers (vv. 1, 2) also to the Jewish 


1 Urspr. ad. Stinde, Il. p. 174 ff. mercy toward the wretched, was the 

2 In Reuter’s Repert. 1860, Oct., p. 16. motive for not leaving them to their misery, 

3 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 87%. [Cf. Winer, but, ete. The €Acos is thus related to the 
§ 53, 7.] ayary as the species to the genus. 

4 The great love of God, who is rich in 


ree 


: CHAP. Ils, Ds 369 
Christians (ver. 3), the resumption of the object with jua¢ now embraces both, 
the Jewish and Gentile Christians. 

Ver. 5. The «ai is not to be taken as in ver. 1 (‘‘also us collectively,” 
Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earlier expositors), which, apart from the 
universal reference of the jac, the ‘order of the words forbids (kai juac 
must have been written), according to which, also, the xai of ver. 1 can by 
no means be here resumed ;! further, «ai isnot, with Koppe, to be taken as a- 
though, seeing that, in fact, amaking alive cannot take place otherwise than 
from a state of death, and consequently «ai cannot convey any climactic stress, 
on which account Harless explains incorrectly from a logical point of view : 
‘¢even in the state of death, in which we were.” ? Erasmus paraphrases as 
though kai stood before cvvefwor., and even the expedient to which Morus has 
recourse, that xai corresponds to the kai of ver. 6 (non modo, ‘not only,” 
... verum etiam, ‘‘ but also”), would demand this position. Others give 
other explanations, and many are silent with regard to it. If «ai were also, 
it would have to be referred to dvrac,? and would express the reality of the 
relation asserted in ver. 1.4 But there would be nothing to call for the as- 
surance of this reality. It is rather the simple copula : and, annexing to 
the dia tr. rod. ay. fv yy. ju. a further element.° The two elements, side 
by side, place in the full light what God has done. God has, on account 
of His much love, and when we were dead in the sins, made us alive with 
Christ. The xai might also be omitted, but the keeping of the points 
thus apart strengthens the representation. — toic tapart.| The article denotes 
the sins, which we had committed, with a retrospective glance at ver. 1. — 
ovve(worroince TH Xp.| is by most expositors® understood of new spiritual 
quickening.” But how is this to be justified from the context? If the 
reader was reminded by vexpotc¢ toic taparr. of the eternal death, to which 
he had been subjected by his pre-Christian life of sin (see on ver. 1), he 
would now have to think of the eferna/ life, which begins with the resur- 
rection, and he could the less think of anything else than of this real resur- 
rection-life, since afterwards there is further expressed the translation to- 
gether into heaven, and then, in ver. 7, the intention of God is referred to 
the times after the Parousia. And had not already i. 18 f. pointed definitely 
to the future kAnpovoyia? How, in this connection, could a reader light 
upon the merely ethical, spiritual quickening (Rom. vi. 4 f. ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; 
Gal. 1. 19 f.)? No, God has made believers alive with Christ; i.e, in 
Christ’s revivification, which God has wrought, theirs also is included. By 
virtue of the dynamic connection in which Christ stands with His believers, 
as the head with its body (i. 23), their revivification is objectively compre- 


1 Riickert, Matthies, Holzhausen, and 
most of the older expositors. 
2 Comp. Calvin and de Wette. 


probably the correct one, and follows it. 
§ Including Flatt, Riickert, Meier, Mat- 
thies, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Baum- 


3 For, as to the fact that «ai, also, always 
lays the stress upon that word, before which 
it stands, see Haupt, Odss. Crit. p. 55 ff. 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 638. 

4 Hartung, I. p. 182 f. 

5 Bleek describes this view of mine as 


a4 


garten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, Bleek. 

7“ Justificationem et regenerationem nos- 
tram complectitur,”’ ‘‘It embraces our justi- 
fication and regeneration,’ Boyd ; Riickert 
would have us think mainly of the justifica- 
tion. 


370 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
hended in His,—a relation, in fact, of which the Christian is conscious in 
faith ; ‘‘quum autem fides suscipitur, ea omnia a Deo applicantur homini, 
et ab homine rata habentur,” ‘‘ But when faith is received, all those things 
are applied to man by God and are considered as ratified by man,” Bengel. 
So the matter stands in the view of the apostle as accomplished, because the 
making alive of Christ is accomplished ; the future actual making alive, or, as 
the case may be, change at the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 28), is then the subjec- 
tive individual participation of that which is already objectively given on 
the part of God in the resurrection of Christ. Certainly Paul might, in ac- 
cordance with another mode of looking at it, have expressed himself by the 
future, as at 1 Cor. xv. 22; cf. Rom. vill. 17 ; but who does not feel that 
by means of the aorist’ the matter stands forth more forcibly and trium- 
phantly out of the believing conviction of the apostle? ob¢ édixaiwoe robroue 
kat éd6€ace, Rom. viii. 830. — The obdv in ovvefwor. is by Beza erroneously re- 
ferred to the coagmentatio gentium et Judaeorum, ‘‘union of Gentiles and 
Jews,” a reference which is forbidden by the rt» Xpror ; and by Grotius, 
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and others, it is explained ad exemplum, ‘‘ according 
to the example,” ? by which the Pauline idea of fellowship with Christ, which 
also lay at the bottom of i. 19, is quite arbitrarily explained away. — Comp. 
on Col. ii. 18; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. i. 12. — ydpiti tote ceowop.] by grace 
(not by merit) are ye partakers of the Messianic salvation! an impassioned 
(hence expressed in the second person), parenthetic reminding the readers 
of the divine basis of the salvation which had accrued to them, designated 
by ovvefworoince 3 a reminding, which was very natural for the apostle in 
general (for its tenor was the sum of his doctrine and the constant echo of 
his own experience, 1 Cor. xv. 10), and more especially here, where he rep- 
resents the quickening of believers as accomplished with the making alive 
of Christ, which could not but repel even the most distant thought of per- 
sonal merit. In connection with ovrvetwor. 7. Xp. the possession of the 
Messianic bliss is designated as an already accomplished fact, although it was 
before the Parousia (Col. iii. 3 f.) merely a possession in hope (Rom, viii. 
24), and the final realization was yet future (Rom. v. 10). That the ydprre 
emphatically placed at the beginning? means the grace of God, not of 
Christ,* is manifest from the context, in which God is constantly the 
subject. 

Ver. 6. After the making alive of Christ in the grave followed Tis resur- 
rection, With which Paul regards that of believers as likewise accomplished. 
Hence : kai ovygyerpe, which in like manner is not to be taken in the spiritual 
sense ;° but see on ver.5. With strange inconsistency several expositors, 
such as Menochius, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius, Grotius, although taking 


1“ Ponitur autem aoristus de re, quae, 
quamvis futura sit, tamen pro peracta recte 
censeatur, cum... alia re jam facta con- 
tineatur,” ‘“‘ The aorist is used of a matter, 
which, although it be future, nevertheless is 
properly regarded as past, when it is con- 
tained in another matter already accom- 
plished,” Fritzsche, a@ Rom. IL. p. 206. 


2 Comp. Anselm: sicuf, ‘* just as.” 

3 For ‘‘gratiam esse docet proram et 
puppim,” ‘tHe teaches that grace is both 
prow and stern,” Bengel. 

4 Beza; comp. the inserted ob in D* EF 
G, Vulg. It. Victorin. Aug. Ambrosiaster. 

5 “To make them enter upon the new life 
of grace,’’ Riickert. 


CHAP. II, 7. 371 
cvvetwor. metaphorically, nevertheless have taken this ovvfyeipe (as well as 
the element that follows) in a literal sense, and mentally supplied nempe spe, 
‘‘namely, by hope,” or the like. —xai ouvexdficev év toig éxoup.| and hath 
given to us joint-seat in the heavenly regions (comp. i. 20), so that we have 
part (see on 1 Cor. vi. 2) in the dominion of the Exalted One (2 Tim. ii. 12); 
which Paul likewise sees as already accomplished’ with the installing of 
Christ at the right hand of God ; hence, there was no need at all for supply- 
ing the thought jure et virtute spirituali, ‘by spiritual right and virtue,” ? 
or for a transference of the matter to the praescientia Dei, ‘‘ God’s fore- 
knowledge,” * and other such expedients. —év Xpior@ "Iyjcot] belongs to 
cuvAyerpe and cvvexaficev év toic éxovpay., so that what was expressed in the 
case of ovvefwor. by (cvv) 7@ Xpiotd, is here expressed, in yet more exact 
conception of the relation, by (cvv) év Xpior@ (jointly in Christ). Inasmuch, 
namely, as God raised and exalted Christ (év XpiotH), He has raised and 
exalted us with Him. év Xpior@ accordingly is by no means intended to 
denote the ovyxafiferv as figurative.* — On éy roic éxovpav. (see on i. 3) Bengel, 
we may add,° aptly remarks : ‘‘non dicit in dextra ; Christo sua manet ex- 
cellentia,” ‘‘ He does not say : ‘at the right hand ;’ His own excellence re- 
mains to Christ.” The transitive ovyxafifew is not elsewhere preserved. 
Ver. 7. Aim of God in connection with what is said, vv. 5, 6.—iva 
évdeityrac| prefixed with emphasis : in order—not to leave concealed and 
unknown, but—to erhibit and make manifest, ete. Comp. Rom. ix. 23.— é» 
Toi¢ alder Toic Exepy. | in the ages coming on, 2.e., in the times after the Parousia, 
as being already on the approach.® In the times from the Parousia (con- 
ceived as near at hand) onward, the manifestation designed by God of His 
grace towards believers was to take place, because not before, but only after 
the Parousia, would the making alive of the believers, etc., implicitly con- 


1 Explanations in the spiritual sense. 
Calixtus: ‘‘Ea nobis dedit dona, quae ci- 
vibus coelorum propria sunt,” ‘He hath 
given us those gifts which are peculiar to 
citizens of heaven.’’ Rosenmiiller: ‘‘ Sum- 
ma felicitate nos ornavit, quasi jam in 
coelo essemus recepti,”’ ‘‘ He hath furnished 
us with the highest happiness, as though we 
had been already received in heaven.” 
Riickert and Bleek remind us of the woA‘- 
tevua Of Christians, which is in heaven 
(Phil. ii. 20; comp. Col. iii. 1 ff.). Meier: 
“ Exaltation into a celestially enlightened. 
pure and holy, state of life.’ Matthies: 
“The spiritual kingdom of heaven or of 
God.” Olshausen: ‘“ The awakening of the 
heavenly consciousness.’? Koppe remarks 
superficially and with hesitation: ‘‘ Nobis 
quidem in omnibus, ‘inall these terms,’ his 
Gwororetavar eyelpertat, Kadigew ev éoup. 
nihil inesse videtur nisi summae et uni- 
versae felicitatis, qua Christiani vel jam 
fruuntur, vel olim magis etiam fruiturisunt, 
descriptio,” “‘nothing seems to us to be in- 


cluded but a description of the supremeand 
universal happiness which Christians either 
already or will hereafter enjoy.’’ Accord- 
ing to Baumgarten-Crusius, there is ex- 
pressed “‘ exaltation into a purely spiritual 
heaven-like state.””» De Wette takes ouvve- 
Gwor. of the deliverance out of the misery of 
sin, ovvyyecpe of regeneration and, at the 
same time, of the resurrection of the body 
guaranteed in the spiritual life, and cvvera- 
dicev k.7.A, Of the hope of the eternal doga. 
Schenkel interpretsit of the presentiment of 
the future glory. 

2 Bengel. 

3 Jerome. 

4 Olshausen. 

5 Comp. already Estius. 

® Comp. LXX. Isa. xliv. 7, xlv. 11; Judith 
ix.5; 3 Macc. v. 2; Luke xxi. 26; Jas. v. 1; 
Hom. Od. xxiv. 142 ; Thue. i. 126; Plat. Sopi. 
p. 234 D ; Aesch. Prom. 98: 70 wapov 70 7’ evrep- 
xouevov, Pind. Ol. x. 11: Exadev yap excAdav 
© méeAAwY XpOVOS. 


372 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


tained in the making alive of Christ, be actually accomplished in the 
subjects. Incorrect, seeing that the apostle was previously speaking, not 
of the spiritual, but of the real resurrection, etc., is the rendering of Morus: 
‘‘per omne vestrum tempus reliquum quum in hac vita tum in futura 
quoque,” ‘‘ through all your time left, not only in this life, but also in that 
which is to come,” as well as that of Wolf :! ‘‘tempora inde ab apostolicis 
illis ad finem mundi secutura,” ‘‘the times that were to follow from those 
of the apostles to the end of the world.” Koppe brings out, ‘wt aeternum 
duraturum argumentum extaret,” ‘that an argument might stand forth 
which would last eternally,” which is quite mistaken, since, while it is 
true that the aidvec oi érepyopuevoe are eternal times, the words do not signify 
tempora aeternum futura, ‘‘ times to be eternally.” Respecting the plural 
roi¢ alot, comp. on iii. 21. To infer from this that the setting in of the 
Messianic period will not be accomplished suddenly, but by way of suc- 
cessive development,’ is at variance with the whole N. T. The future 
aiév sets in through the Parousia very suddenly and in an instant, Matt. 
xxiv. 27; 1 Cor. xv. 52, al. Hence we have not mentally to supply with 
évdeiE. anything like : ‘‘ ever more completely,” * or ‘‘ ever more effectively,” * 
which is sheer caprice. — The form rd rAovroc is here also decisively attested. 
See on i. 7. —év ypyoréryte é¢’ yuac év XpiotS "Inoov] is to be taken together, 
and the instrumental éy indicates by what God will manifest the exceeding 
great riches of His grace in the ages to come, by kindness towards us in 
Christ Jesus, i.e., by means of the fact that He shows Himself gracious 
towards us, of which the ground lies in Christ (not in us, see ver. 8). The 
article was not at all requisite before é¢’ juac, since ypyoréryte is anarthrous, 
and besides ypyorérc é¢’ jude, like ypyorov elvar é¢’ jac (Luke vi. 35), can be 
closely joined together in thought. Comp. on i. 15.—The ydpic is the 
source of the ypyoréryc, which latter displays itself in forgiving (comp. 
Prayer of Manass. 11 ; Tit. iii. 4; Rom. ii. 4) and in benefiting, and there- 
fore is the evidence of the former, the opposite of azorouia, Rom. x1. 22.° 
Ver. 8. How entirely was I justified in saying : 10 imepBddAdAov riovroe THe 
yapitoc avtov | for, ete. Thus Paul now expresses himself with more detail 
as to the great truth, of which his heart was so full that it had already, ver. 
5, interrupted the course of his address. — rq yapite] by the grace. By the 
article the divine grace just now spoken of is indicated, after it had been 
meant doubtless by the anarthrous ydpir:, ver. 5, but designated by it only 
as regards the category (by grace). — dia rie riotewc | for the faith in the atone- 
ment made by Christ (Rom. iii. 25, 30, al.) is, as the causa apprehendens, 
‘apprehending cause,” of the Messianic salvation, the necessary mediate 
instrument on the part of man, while the ydapic is the divine motive, the 
causa efficiens, ‘‘ efficient cause,” of the bestowal. The emphasis, however, 
is retained by rH yaprte alone, and dia tHe xior. is only the modal definition 
to cecwou. —kai TovTo ovx é& iuav x.t.4.] Nothing is here to be treated as 


1Comp. Calvin, Piscator, Boyd, Estius, 3 Flatt. 
Calixtus, Michaelis, Zachariae, Meier, Mat- 4 Schenkel. 
thies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek. 5 Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 195; van 


2 Schenkel. Hengel, ad Rom. II. p. 682. 


CHAP; II.,.8: 373 


parenthesis; neither the whole kai rovro down to épyov, ver. 9,1 nor merely 
@c0v 7d dépov,? since neither the construction nor the course of thought is 
interrupted. «ai rovro is referred by the Fathers in Suicer,* Erasmus, Beza, 
Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, including Koppe, 
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, to the faith (rd 
moreve), comp. Phil. i. 29; 2 Cor. iv. 14. In that case kai rovro . . . dépov 
would have to be taken parenthetically. But how violent is this taking to 
pieces of the text, since oi« é& duov and oi« é épywv present themselves in a 
manner alike natural and weighty as elements belonging to one jlow of the 
discourse! Rightly, therefore, have Calvin, Calovius, Baumgarten, Semler, 
Zachariae, Morus, and others, including Riickert, Matthies, Holzhausen, 
Harless, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek, referred it to the salvation just desig- 
nated as regards its specific mode. Paul very earnestly and emphatically 
enters into more detailed explanations as to what he had just said, 77 yap 
yapire x.T.2., namely, to the effect that he briefly and forcibly places in the 
light of the respective contrasts, first, that objective element of the saving 
deliverance which has taken place (7% ydpitv) by otk && budv, Oecd Td dapor, 
and then the subjective element (61a TH¢ TisTewc), by ovK éF Epywv wa pm. T. Kavy. 
His thought is: ‘‘Through grace you are in possession of salvation by 
means of faith, and that to the exclusion of your own causation and operative 
agency.” This latter he expresses with the vivacity and force of contrast 
thus : ‘‘ and that (kai rovro, see on Rom. xiii. 11) not from you, it is God's 
gift ; not from works, in order that no one may boast.” The asyndetic juxta- 
position takes place witha ‘‘ propria quadam vi, alacritate, gravitate,” ‘‘ pe- 
culiar force, ardor, and dignity.” *— oix« é¢ tuav] negatives their own personal 
authorship of the salvation.* — Ocov rd dapov] 7.€., Ocov ddpov Td Sdpov, God's 
gift is the gift in question (namely, the cecwouévoy elvac). Comp. already 
Bengel. —oi« é& &pyov] Parallel of ov« é& iuov, hence to be completed by 
éoté ceowopévoe (not by 76 dapdv éorr), net from work-merit does it come that 
you have the salvation. The gpya would exclude the ziorve as the subjective 
condition of salvation (Rom. iii. 28, iv. 5, ix. 32; Gal. i. 16, ili. 2), as é¢ 
iuav would exclude the yapic as the objective cause of salvation, because it 
presupposes the idia dcxacocivy (Rom. x. 3). No doubt é épywy excludes also 
the yapic, as does likewise é& iuev exclude the wicrie ; but the two elements 
opposed to the yapic and the rictic are, on occasion of the proposition 77 yap 
yapitt . . . xiotewc, held apart after the manner of a formal parallelism. 
That, moreover, the notion of the Zoya is determined not merely by the 
Jewish law, but—inasmuch as the readers were for the most part Gentile- 
Christians—also by the natural law (Rom. ii. 14 f.), is self-evident. The 
proposition in itself, however, oi« é Zpywr, is so essential and universally 
valid a fundamental proposition of the Pauline Gospel, and certainly so 
often expressed by the apostle among Jews and Gentiles, that the severe 


judgment as to its having no meaning, when laid down without reference 


1 Griesbach, Scholz. 4 Dissen, Hrc. IT. ad Pind. p. 273. 
2 Lachmann, Harless, de Wette. 5 Hllendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 551 f. 
3 Thes. II. p. 728. 


374 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

to the Mosaic law, must appear unfounded.’ — iva] design ef God in the rela- 
tion indicated by ovx é épywr, not ecbatic.2? Comp. 1 Cor, i. 29, 31, and as 
regards the thing itself, Rom. iii. 27. Grotius aptly says: ‘‘ quicquid est 
in flumine, fonti debetur,” ‘‘ whatever is in the river, is due the fountain,” 
which, however, is not to be limited merely to the prima gratia. [See Note 
XIX., p. 400.] See ver. 10 ; 2 Cor. x. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 10. 

Ver. 10. Reason assigned for the previous ov« é iuav . . . xavygo. Tf, 
namely, we are God’s zoijua, our Messianic salvation cannot be of our own 
acquiring, but only God’s gift ; and if we are created in Christ unto good 
works, how could merit of works (which would need to have been already 
acquired in the time anterior to this our creation) be the cause of our sal- 
vation, and subject of our own boasting? The argumentative stress lies 
consequently (1) on airod, and (2) on Kriofévrec ; and then oic¢ rpoytoiuacev 
«.T.A. is an elucidation significantly bearing on xricfévrec év X. 71. él py. ay., 
which makes the impossibility of pre-Christian merit of works thoroughly 
palpable. —airov] with emphasis : His, just His work, and no other’s, are 
we.* — roijua, thing made (comp. Rom. i. 20), refers to the ethieal creation 
(that of the new spiritual state of life), which the Christian as such has ex- 
perienced (radsyyeveoia, Tit. iii. 5), not, as Tert. c. Mare. v. 17, Gregory of 
Nazianzus, Basil, and Photius would have it, to the physical creation (the 
spiritual being only introduced by xriofévrec x.7.A.), which is opposed to the 
context, as is also the combination of the two creations by Pelagius, Eras- 
mus, Matthies, and Riickert : ‘‘as Christians we . . . are God’s work just 
as well, as in respect of our being men at all.” Only the form, in which the 
constituting of the new condition of life is expressed, is derived from the 
physical creation. — xricfévtec] by God at our conversion. — év Xpior@ "Tyo00] 
for citic év Xptore, Kxacvy xriowc, 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. vi. 15. Christ is the 
specific element of life, within which the ethical roijua Ocov has come to 
pass, but apart from which this creative process has not taken place. — émi 
épyore ayafoic] moral aim.* On the thing itself, comp. Rom. viii. That, by 
which God prepares what is created by Him in Christ for this moral end, is 
the Holy Spirit, Rom. viii. ; Gal. iii. 2; John iii. 5 f. Good works (not 
épya vouov) are fruits of regeneration, different from épyuv, ver. 9. — oi¢ mpoy- 
Toi. 6 Oedc] olc is to be taken, according to the usual attraction (see Winer, 
p. 147 f.), for a :° which God hath before (previously to the krvobévrec) placed in 
readiness, in order that we might walk in them, that they might be the ele- 
ment in which our life-walk should take place.* The prefixed rpoyr. has 
in the circumstances significant emphasis. Paul conceives, namely, of the 
morally good works in which the walk of the Christian moves, as being 
already, even before his conversion, placed in readiness’ by God, namely, 





1In opposition to de Wette. 

2 Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen. 

3Comp. Hom. Od. x. 27: avteyv yap amwa- 
éued adppadinow. Winer, p. 140. 

4 (Cf. Winer, § 48.] 

5 Syriac, Gothic, Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, 
Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Grotius, and others, 
including Harless, Matthies, Holzhausen, 


Olshausen, de Wette, Lamping, p. 87f.; 
Bleek. : 

6 thy ém’ avtois amavatov axéow Sydot, “He 
shows the never-ending state for them,” 
Oecumenius. 

7 Plut. Mor. p. 230 E; Joseph. Anét. xvii. 
5,6; LXX. Isa. xxviii. 24; Wisd. ix. 8. 


CHAP. In; 10: 375 
in His decree. And this cowld not but be the case, if God would create 
unto good works. For, if the converted man is God’s creature, then the 
moral activity of life, in which the specific nature of the kav xriow is to 
manifest itself, and without which he would not be God’s roinua and xriocc, 
must likewise proceed from God ; consequently, when the moral creative 
act (the regeneration) is accomplished, it must already in God’s counsel 
and will, bein such wise prepared and held ready for communication, that it 
has to receive the new creature from its Creator, and in this way to work 
the works of Ged. Thus these good works following regeneration are as it 
were outflowings from a divine treasure beforehand placed in readiness, 
from which the regenerate man has received them, when he does them and 
walks in them.’ The sense of the word rpoeroudge is changed, if it is ex- 
plained only as to predestine,? which would be expressed by zpoopifew 3° and 
it is rationalized away when Olshausen says that the circumstances and rela- 
tions, under which it is possible to men to perform good works, are ordained 
by God. It is not of the cirewmstances which render the works possible, 
but of the works themselves, that Paul affirms that God has before placed 
them in readiness ; as accordingly, when they are accomplished, it is God 
who works the willing and working (Phil. ii. 18). According to Hofmann,* 
the good works are once for all present in Christ, so that they need not to 
be brought forth first by us, the individuals, but are produced before- 
hand, in order that our fellowship with Christ may be also a fellow- 
ship of His conduct—that our walk in Him may be a walk in them. 
But in this way Paul would have left the very point of the thought 
in rpoyroiu. (namely, in Christ) unexpressed. Others take oi¢ as dative 
of the destination: unto which God hath prepared us.° In this case, 
iva év abroig mepix. would by no means be a redundant and feeble tautology, 
as Harless supposes, but an emphatic epexegesis of oi¢. But against this 
view it may be urged that Paul must necessarily, because the verb would be 
quite objectless, have added jjwac,° the omission of which, considering the 
frequency of the attraction of oic fora, could only have led the reader astray ; 
moreover, zpo would receive no emphasis accordant with the prefixing of 
mpontoiu., inasmuch as the time of the mpoeroyudfecv would coincide with that 
of the «rifewv. Walla and Erasmus take ol¢ as masculine ; for whom He hath 
before appointed, that we, etc., to which also Riickert, although hesitating 
between this and the preceding explanation, is inclined. But how arbitra- 
rily in this way is oi¢ referred to what is more remote and different from 


1 Explanations like that of Grotius; 
““praeparayit tum praescribendo formam 
operum tum dando Spiritum,”’ ‘“‘ He pre- 
pared them both by prescribing the form of 
the works, and by giving the Spirit,” etc., 
fail of doing justice to the case by making 
mpo in mponr. synchronous with kricbevtes. 

2 Augustine and others, including Har- 
less, Lamping. 

3 See Fritzsche; ad Rom. II. p. 339. 

4 Schrifibew. I1. 1, p. 365, If. 2, p. 294. 

STuther, Clericus, Semler, Michaelis, 


Zachariae, Morus, Flatt, Meier, Schenkel, 
and others. 

6 This also in opposition to Calovius, who 
takes ois in the adlative sense: ‘‘ quibus, se. 
hactenus dictis ... per justificationem et 
renovationem, praeparavit vel disposuit 
(nos), ut in operibus bonis ambulemus,” ‘* by 
which, viz., these hitherto mentioned, 
through justification or renewal he pre- 
pared or disposed us, so that we may walk 
in good works.” 


376 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


avroic ! and how changed is the literal sense of rpoeroudtew 1 Utterly arbi- 
trary and erroneous, finally, is the view of Bengel, Koppe, and Rosenmiiller, 
as also of Baumgarten-Crusius, that it is to be explained per Hebraismum, 
‘Cas a Hebraism,” 1 for év ol¢ wa repitatiowuev pont. 6 Oedc, in whieh case 
Koppe and Rosenmiiller make poerouudfecv equivalent to velle jubere, ‘‘ wish, 
bid !"—According to Schwegler,’ Baur,* and de Wette, there is to be discov- 
ered in our passage the post-apostolic tendency to combine the doctrine of Paul 
(ob« é€ épyov) with the Jewish-Christian view (that of James) concerning good 
works. As though the works were not in our passage too, as in all Pauline 
Epistles, based upon faith (observe, withal, év X. ’I.) !—The Pauline faith 
has always moral practice as its necessary vital activity, and this is conse- 
quently always the aim (not : w/fimate aim) of the new creation wrought 
through faith by means of the Spirit. We may add that the good works, 
even at our passage,—where, moreover, they are traced back wholly to God 
as the author,—are so far from being the condition of justification, that, on 
the contrary, the dogmatic canon here receives full confirmation : ‘‘ Bona 
opera non praecedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justifieatum,” ‘ Good works 
do not precede the one to be justified, but they follow him as justified.” 
Comp. Calovius. Aptly does Bengel remark on zepirar. : ‘“‘ambularemus, 
non salvaremur aut viveremus,” ‘* that we should walk, not that we should 
be saved, or should live.” The assertion, that here (and in Colossians) much 
greater importance is ascribed to good works than in the other letters of the 
apostle, is, looking even to vv. 7-9, incorrect. [See Note XX., p. 400.] 
Ver. 11. Ais] Therefore, because such exalted and unmerited benefits have 
been imparted to us (vv. 4-10). [See Note XXL. p. 400 seq.] These bene- 
fits should move the reader to remember his former miserable heathen state 
(roré, v. 8; Col. i. 21), in order the more gratefully to appreciate, by con- 
trast with the past, the value of his present state. — érc roré ipeic ta Edun ev 
capxi| Neither jre nor dvrec is to be supplied, but (observe the order criti- 
cally vouched for : roré tyeic) ore is taken up again by the rz of ver. 12, and 
moré by TO Kaip@ éxeive, ver. 12; while ra Evy év capKi is a descriptive defini- 
tion to tueic, to which it is related by way of apposition, and oi Acyéuevoe 
«7.2. is attributive definition to iveic ra Sry év capki : that at one time ye, 
the Gentiles in the flesh, ye who (quippe qui) were named Foreskin . . . that 
ye at that time, etc. — ra 9vn év capxt] is closely connected as one conception, 
and hence without the article before év capi. This év capxi is, as to its 
meaning, necessarily defined by the undoubted meaning of the following év 
capi ; on which account it is neither to be taken, as a contrast to regenera- 
tion, of the former unholy life of the readers,° nor as origine carnali, natali- 
bus, ‘‘by carnal origin, birth,” * nor is it to be generalized into respectu 
status externi, ‘‘ with respect to the external condition.” 7 It has reference 
to the foreskin. In the flesh, on account of the non-circumcised foreskin, 





1 See, on the other hand, Fritzsche, ad 5 Ambrosiaster, Calovius, Wolf, Holzhau- 
Matth. p. 139. sen. 

2 In Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, p. 391. 6 Bucer, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, Rosen- 

3 Paulus, p. 453. miiller, Flatt. 


4 Baur, newt. Theol. p. 270. 7 Morus. 


CHAP IE. 1 125 0 Bad 


the character ethnicus, ‘‘ Gentile character,” was inherent.—The ra #0 vy év o., 
with the article, designates the readers as to their category. The contempt, 
however, incurred in their pre-Christian state lies not in ré é3vy év o. (for 
this they still remained), but in the following oi Aeyéuevor «.7.A.; although 
we may not, by mentally supplying’ the contrast ov« év mvevwatc, make év 
oapki into an element of recommendation. — oi reyouevor. . . yetpor.| is not to 
be placed in a parenthesis,? seeing that it is a continued description of the 
Gentile state of the readers. As the £31 7% capki, they were those designated 
by the name Foreskin! And, then, the delineation of this despised relation 
is brought to a yet higher climax when it is specified by whom they were 
thus reproachfully designated, namely, by the so-called Cireumeision, which is 
made in the flesh with the hand. So low was the position you occupied ! By 
those who bear the name of this surgical operation perfarmed on the flesh 
(counterpart of the ideal circumcision, Rom. ii. 28 f.; Phil. iii. 3 ; Col. ii. 
11; Acts vii. 51), and hence have by it in and of itself no pre-eminence at 
all, you must allow yourselves to be designated, for want of this external 
rite, with the reproachful name of Foreskin !  év capri yerpor. does not per- 
tain to Aeyou., but is an addition of the apostle himself to repit., describing 
how the matter stands. The abstracta, ‘‘ abstracts,” axpoB. and repit. do not 
here stand pro concretis, ‘‘ for concretes,” but are stated names, by which the 
concretes were in accordance with their peculiar character designated. Comp. 
2 Thess. ii. 4 : én? rdvta Aeyéuevov Ocdv 7 o£ Bacua. The circumstance that 
Paul, instead of 76 rij¢ Aeyouévyc, has not again employed the plural expres- 
sion td Tov Asyouévwv, is to be explained by the fact that he wishes to in- 
dicate the repitou7# as a name, which is not adequate to the idea of it in the 
case of the subjects so termed : by the so-called circumcision. [See Note 
XXII., p.401.] The expression is depreciatory (comp. 1 Cor. vili. 5) as con- 
cerns the people who bore the name zepitow#; Whereas oi Aeyouevor axpovartia 
would indicate not the conception of ‘‘ so-called,” but, in a purely objec- 
tive manner, the mentioned fact : ‘‘ those called Foreskin” (Heb. ix. 3). 
Ver. 12. As regards the construction, see on ver. 11. — 76 kaipé éxeivo] 
takes the place of the zoré, ver. 11, and means the pre-Christian, heathen 
period of the readers. On the dative of time without év, see Winer, p. 195 f. 
— ywpic Xpiotov| aloof from connection with Christ ; for ‘* yopic ad subjec- 
tum, quod ab objecto sejunctum est, refertur,” ‘‘is referred to the subject 
which is separated from the object.”* It is dependent on jre as its first sad 
predicate, and does not belong, as a more precise definition, to the subject, * 
in which case it would in fact be entirely self-evident and superfluous. In 
how far the readers as Gentiles were without Christ, we are told in the 
sequel. They stood afar off and aloof from the theocratic bond, in which 
Christ would have been to them, in accordance with the promise, the object 
of their faith and ground of their salvation. If Paul had wished to express 
merely the negation of the Christian relation,® how tame and idle would this 


1 With Chrysostom and his successors. Bleek. 
2 Griesbach, Scholz. 5 Ye were without knowledge of Christ ; 
3 Tittmann, Synon. p. 94. comp. Anselm, Caloyius, Flatt. 


4“ When ye were as yet without Christ,” 


378 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

in itself have been! and, moreover, not in keeping with the connection of 
that which follows, according to which, as is already clear from ver. 11, 
Paul wishes to bring out the disadvantage at which the readers, as Gentiles, 
had been placed in contradistinction to the Jews. Hence Grotius rightly in- 
dicates the relation as to contrast of ver. 12 to ver. 13 : ‘* Nunc eum (Chris- 
tum) non minus possidetis vos quam di, quibus promissus fuerat,” ‘* Now ye 
possess Him (Christ) no less than they to whom He had been promised.” 
Riickert refers ywpic X. to the activity of Christ under the O. T. previously to 
His incarnation, with an appeal to 1 Cor. x. 4.7. But ré Karp éxeivw, in 
fact, applies to the pre-Christian lifetime of the readers, and thus comprises 
a time which was subsequent to the incarnation. Xpiotod means the historical 
Christ, so far as He was the very promised Messiah. The relation yupic 
Xpcorod ig described from the standpoint of the apostle, for whom the bond 
with the Messiah was the bond with Christ. [See Note XXIII., p. 401.] — 
The charge that the author here makes an un-Pauline concession to Juda- 
ism? is incorrect, since the concession concerns only the pre-Christian rela- 
tion. Comp. Rom. ix. 4,5. A superiority of Judaism, in respect of the 
pre-Christian relation to Christianity, Paul could not but necessarily teach 
(comp. Acts ili. 25 f.; Rom. i. 16, iii. 1 f.; Gal. ili. 13 f.); but that Chris- 
tianity as to its essential contents was Judaism itself, merely extended 
through the death of Christ to the Gentiles also, he has not taught either 
here or elsewhere ; in fact, the doing away of the law taught by him in this 
very passage is the very opposite thereof.* — axnAAotpiopévor k.t.A. |] Comp. 
On aTaAdotpi6w, Dem. 255, 3 ; Polyb. i. 79. 6, 1. 82. 9; often in the LXX.* 
and Josephus, Krebs, Odss. p. 326. The notion of alien does not here 
(comp. also iv. 18 ; Col. i. 21) presuppose the existence of an earlier fellow- 
ship, but it was their status ethnicus, ‘‘ Gentile state,” itsel7,° by which the 
readers were at one time placed apart from connection with the roAvrela rod 
"Iopafi. i.e., whereby this aAAorpiéryj¢ took place. The opposite: idvor, oixeior, 
ovuurodita (ver. 19).  odcteia signifies as well political constitution ® as right 
of citizenship.* The latter signification is assumed by Erasmus, Luther, 
Beza, Bullinger, Michaelis, and others. But the idea of right of citizen- 
ship was for the apostle, himself a Roman citizen, as well as for the readers, 
a secular privilege, and one therefore foreign to the connection of our pas- 
sage, where everything points to the theocracy, and this was the political 
constitution of the Israelites. — rov "Icpaya] The divine name of Jacob (Gen. 
XXXlil. 28, xxxv. 10) is, according to the traditionally hallowed usage of 


1 Comp. ofshausen (“the immanence of 
Christ as regards His divinity in Israel’’). 

2 Schwegler, /.c. p. 388 f. 

3In opposition to Baur, Paulus, p. 545; 
Christenth. der drei ersten Jahrh. p. 107. 

4 Schleusner, Thesaur. I. p. 825. 

5 Not, as Grotius would have it (whom 
Rosenmiiller follows): the diversity of 
political institutions: ‘‘In illa republica a 
Deo instituta non modo honores non pote- 
ratis capere, sed nec pro civibus haberi; 
adeo distabant instituta,”’ ‘‘In the state estab- 


lished by God you were not only not able to 
receive honors, but not even to be held as 
citizens ; to such an extent did the institu- 
tions differ.” 

6 Thue. ii. 36; Plato, Polit. vii. p. 520 B; 
Legg. iv. p. 712 E; Arist. Polit. iii. 4. 1; Isoe. 
Hvag. viii. 10; Xen. Ages. i. 37 ; 2 Mace. iv. 
Tals Sia, dere 

7 Herod. ix. 34; Dem. 161, 11; Thue. Vi. 
104. 8; Diod. Sic. xii. 51; 8 Mace. iii. 21; 
Acts xxii. 28; Joseph. Anit, xii, 3, 1. 


CHAP ei... 12. 319 
the O. T., the theocratic name of his posterity, the Jewish people, Rom. ix. 
6; 1 Cor. x. 18; Gal. vi. 16, al. The genitive, however, is not to be ex- 
plained like dorv ’A@yvév ;’ for 6 ’IcpayA is the people, which as the polity. 
— kab Eévor tov StadyKdv tig éxayy.| and foreign to the covenants of the promise 
(not belonging thereto); these words are to be taken together ;* for only thus 
do the two elements belonging to each other and connected by xai, which 
serve for the elucidation of yapic Xpiorov, stand in harmonious symmetry ; 
only in this way, likewise, is similar justice done to the two last particulars 
connected by kai,—éArida py Exovteg Kai Geo év TE KéOouw—Which in their 
very generality and brevity carry the description of the Gentile misery to 
the uttermost point ; only in this way, lastly, does Eévoe tov dvabyxov acquire 
the characteristic coloring which it needs, in order not to appear tame after 
arnaaotp. T. Tod. tT. “Iop., for precisely in the characteristic rec érayy. lies the 
sad significance of the being apart from the rojireia tod Iopaya. The cove- 
nants of the promise, i.e., the covenants with which its promise kar’ é£oyfv, 
“‘nre-eminently,” namely, that of the Messianic salvation (Rom. ix. 4; Gal. 
lli.), was connected, are the covenants made with Abraham (Gen. xii. 2 f., 
7, xii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 20, xxii. 16 ff.) and repeated with the other patri- 
archs (Gen. xxvi. 2 ff., xxvili. 13 ff.), as also the covenant formed with the 
people through Moses. The latter is here (it is otherwise at Rom. ix. 4, 
where there specially follows 7 voyodecia) neither excluded,* seeing that this 
covenant also had the promise of Messianic life (6 rojoac aita Choerat év 
avroic, Gal. ili. 12), nor exclusively meant.* Either is arbitrary, and against 
the latter there may be urged specially the plural, as well as the eminent 
importance which Paul must have attributed to the patriarchal covenants in 
particular.® — éArida pi Ey. x. adeor év TO K.] Consequence of the preceding 
arnadorp. . éxayy., and in what a tragic climax ! The very generality of 
the expressions, inasmuch as it is not merely a definite hope (Paul did not 
write r7v éArida) and a definite relation to God that are denied, renders 
these last traits of the picture so dark !— éArida] Bengel : ‘‘Si promissi- 
onem habuissent, spem habuissent illi respondentem,” ‘‘if they would have 
had the promise, they would have had the hope corresponding thereto.” 
But in this way Paul must have written rj éAnida. No, those shut out 
from the promise, are for the apostle men without hope at all; they have 
nothing to hope for, just because they have not to hope for the promised sal- 
vation. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 13. Every explanation of a definite hope ° con- 
flicts with the absence of the article, and weakens the force of the picture. 
— pi éExovrec| uy is not to be explained from the dependence of the thought 
on what immediately precedes,’ by which the independence of the element 


1 Harless. 

2 In opposition to Ambrosiaster, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Morus, Rosenmiiller, and others, 
who attach rijs érayy. to what follows. 

3 Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, and others. 

4Elsner and Wolf, as was already sug- 
gested by Beza. 

5 On évos with a genitive (Kiihner, IT. p. 
163), Comp. Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 1; Soph. Qed. 


R. 219; Plato, Apol. p. 17 D, al. 

® Of the resurrection and life everlasting, 
Bullinger, Grotius, and many ; of the prom- 
ised blessings, Estius ; of deliverance, Har- 
less ; comp. Erasmus and others. 

7“ Poreign to the covenants of the prom- 
ise, without having hope,” as Harless would 
take it, 


380 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 

dr. py Ey. would be sacrificed to the injury of the symmetry and force of 
the passage ; but the subjectivity of the negation results from pvypovetere, 
bre. . . Hre, in accordance with which p7 éyortec is a fact now conceived in 
the recollection of the readers.! The ya refers the éar. yz éx. to the concep- 
tion of the subject of the governing verbum sentiendi (urnwovebtete). — abeor] 
the lowest stage of Gentile misery. We may explain the word,” which oc- 
curs only here in the N. T., and not at all in the LXX. or Apocrypha, either: 
not believing in God, atheists,* or godless, impii, reprobate,* or : without God, 
sine Deo (Vulgate), i.¢., without divine help, without the protection and as- 
sistance of God.* The last-mentioned sense, as yielding the saddest closing 
predicate,* is here to be preferred. The Gentiles had gods, which, how- 
ever, were no gods (Acts xix. 26, xiv. 15; Gal. iv. 8); but, on the contrary, 
what they worshipped and honored as divinities, since the forsaking of the 
natural knowledge of God (Rom. i. 19 ff.), were demons (1 Cor. x. 20) ; so 
that for them with all their devowdaovia (Acts xvii. 22) God was really want- 
ing, and they apart from connection with God’s grace and help lived on in 
a God-forsaken state. Paul might have written Yeocrvycic, as at Rom. i. 30, 
but he continues in the stream of negative designations, which gives to his 
picture an elegiac coloring. — év 76 xéou] is referred by Calovius and Koppe 
to the preceding elements as a whole. But in this way it would have 
something of a dragging effect, whereas it attachesitself with force and sug- 
gestiveness to the bare aeo., whose tragical effect it serves to deepen. 
Only it must not be explained, even when so connected, with Koppe: ‘‘ inter 
ceteros homines, in his terris,” ‘‘among other men in these lands,” in which 
sense it would be devoid of significance. Nay rather, profane hnmanity 
(observe the contrast to the rodureia tov "Iopaha), the Gentile world, was the 
unhallowed domain, in which the readers in former time existed without 
God. It adds to the ungodly How the ungodly Where. Olshausen ex- 
plains : ‘‘in this evi? world, in which one has such urgent need of a sure 
hope, a fast hold to the living God ;” but this is imported, since no predi- 
cate stands beside xéoum. According to Riickert, it is to form a contrast to 
aveor, and that in the sense: ‘‘in the world, of which the earth is a part, 
and which stands under God’s government.”’ But Paul must have said 
this, if he had meant it (by év 76 kéoum Tov Ocod, or something similar). 
Oecumenius and Meier : éy ri Kara tov rapdvta Biov rodcreia, ‘in the com- 
monwealth according to the present life,” ete. This would be expressed by 
Kata Tov Kéouov. —The question, we may add, whether the éArida . . . Kéoum 
applies to all Gentiles, not even a Socrates or a Plato excepted, is, in the 


1 Comp. Kiihner, II. § 715, 3. ii. 148. [See also Cremer’s Worterbuch, 


2See, generally, Diog. Laert. vii. 119; 
Sturz in the Comm. soc. phil. Lips. Il. p. 65 
ff. ; Meier in the Hall. HneyKi. 1. 24, p. 466 ff. 

3 Plato, Apol. p. 26C; Lucian, Alex. 25; 
Aelian, V. H. ii. 31; comp. Ignat. ad Trail. 
10: aOeot bytes, TouTéoTLY amioToL, 

4 Plato, Legg. xii. p. 966 E; Xen. Anab. ii. 
5. 39; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 288. 

5 Soph. ed. 2. 633 : a8cos, didos,comp. 254. 

® Comp. a@eet, Hom. Od. xviii. 352 ; Mosch, 


Eng. Trans. p. 281.] 

7So in substance also Grotius: ‘‘ per 
omnes terrarum oras verum Deum, mundi 
sc. opificem, aut ignorabatis, aut certe non 
colebatis, sed pro eo Deos ab hominibus 
fictos,” ‘‘In all regions of the earth, ye 
either were ignorant of the true God, viz., 
the Creator of the world, or certainly did 
not worship Him, but instead of Him wor- 
shipped the gods made by man.” 


CHAP! TE, 13: osl 


view of the apostle, to be answered affirmatively, at all events in general 
(Rom. iii. 10 ff., xi. 16 ff.; 1 Cor. i. 19 ff.), but has only an indirect appli- 
cation here, since the apostle is speaking of his readers, whom he describes 
as to their category. That, if the subject of his discourse had called for it, 
he would have known how to set limitations to his general judgment, may be 
assumed of itself, andin accordance with Rom. ii. 14 f. Comp. Acts xvii. 28. 

Ver. 18. But now in Christ Jesus ye, once afar off, are made nigh by the 
blood of Christ. — vvvi dé] contrast to Kaip@ éxeivw, ver. 12: but as your 
relation now- stands. Comp. Rom. vi. 22, vil. 6 ; Col. i. 21, iii. 8. — év 
Xpicr® "Inoov| not to be supplemented by éo7é,! nor yet a more precise defi- 
nition of vwvi,? in which case several, proceeding more accurately, supply 
évtec.* But such a more precise definition would be very unnecessary, and 
would have significant weight only if a special emphasis rested upon év as 
in contradistinction to ywpic, ver. 12, which, however, cannot be the case, 
since there is not again used merely év XprorG, but év XpiorS "Iyoov. The 
éy Xptot@ “Ijoov eivac of the readers, moreover, was not prior to the éyyic 
éyeviOnre, but its immediate consequence ; hence we should have at least 
to explain it, not: postguam in Christo estis recepti, ‘‘ After ye were 
received in Christ,” but: ewm in Christo sitis recepti, ‘‘ When ye were 
received,” wherewithal there would still remain the very unnecessary char- 
acter of this more precise definition, or of this conditional accessory clause 
(de Wette). Accordingly év Xp. I. is to be connected with éyyic éyevA. : 
ye are in Christ Jesus, in whom this has its efficient cause, made near ; and 
év Té aiuare Tov Xp. is then the more precise definition of the mode of év Xp. 
"I. Comp. 61a Tot aivarog aizov, i. 7. Hence we have not to place a comma, 
as Lachmann and Tischendorf have done, either before or after éy Xp. "I. — 
TInoov| could not be added at ver. 12, but might be added here, where the 
Christ who historically appeared in the person of Jesus is intended. — 
paxpav| figurative description of the same relation as was expressed in ver. 


76 
9 
~ 


12 by ar7AAotpiwopévor the mwodut. Tov "Iop., and Eévoe trav diadyK. Tic 
émayy. — éyyic¢ éyevil. év TO aiu. t. Xp.] For, by the fact that Christ shed His 
blood, the separation of the Gentiles from the Jews was done away, and 
consequently the fellowship of the former with the community of God’s 
people (which the true Christian Israel henceforth was) was effected. Sce 
ver. 14 ff. The bringing to participation in, the blessings of the theocracy is, 
after the precedent of Isa. xlix. 1, lvii. 19, expressed often also among the 
Rabbins by the figurative propinguum facere, ‘‘to make near” (which with 
them is, with special frequency, equivalent to proselytum facere, ‘‘to make a 
proselyte”), and in that case the subject to whom the approach is made 
is always to be derived from the context.4 — éyyic¢ yivesat, to come near ; only 
here in the N. T., frequent in the classic writers.® 


1 Baumgarten-Crusius. Mechilta, f. 38. 12, where, as here, the theoc- 
2 Riickert : ‘‘ under the new constitution, racy is to be thought of. See, in general, 
founded by Christ.” the passage in Wetstein and Schottgen, 
3 Calvin: ‘‘postquam in Christo estis re- Horae, p. 761 ff. 
cepti,” ‘‘after ye were received in Christ,” 5 Xen. Anabd. y. 4. 16, iv. 7.23; Thue. iii. 
Koppe, Harless, Bleek. 40. 6. 


4 As e.g. Vayikra R. 14, where God, and 


382 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

Ver. 14.1 Confirmatory elucidation to ver. 18, especially as to the element 
implied in the év Xpior@ "Ijoov, and more precisely in the éy r¢ aipar. rob 
Xpicrov. — aire] ipse ; as regards his own person,” is not put in opposition to 
the thought of ourselves having made the peace,* which is in fact quite for- 
eign to the passage ; but—and what a triumph of the certainty and com- 
pleteness of the blessing obtained is therein implied !—‘‘non modo paceifica- 
tor, nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipse vinculum est utrorumque,” ‘ not 
merely the peacemaker, for at the cost of himself he procured peace, and he 
himself is the bond of both,” Bengel. See what follows. Observe also 
the presence of the article in 7 eipfvn, denoting the peace kav’ éEoyAv, ‘* pre- 
eminently ;”* He is for us the peace absolutely, the absolute contrast to the 
éySpa, ver. 15. The Rabbinical passages, however, in which the Messiah 
(Comp. Isa. ix. 6) is called DINY, ‘“peace,” ° do not bear on this passage, 
since in them the point spoken of is not, as here,* the peace between Jews and 

rentiles. —6 rowjoac K.7.A.| quippe qui fecit, ‘‘ since he has made,” etc., now 
begins the more precise information, how Christ has become Himself our 
peace. —ra ayuddrepa] the two [Germ. das Beides], i.e., the two existing parts, 
the Jews and Gentiles. The nevter expression corresponds to the following 
fv. Nothing is to be supplied.” —é] not so, that one part assumed the 
nature of the other, but so that the separation of the two was done away 
with, and both were raised to a new unity. That was the union of the 
See the sequel. Comp. Col. iii. 11; Gal. 111. 28 ; Rom. 
x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13; John x. 16. —xai 7d pecdéroryor Tov op. Abode] is 
related to the foregoing as explicative of it.* tov dpayuov is genitive of appo- 
sition: the partition wall, which consisted in the (well-known) fence. What 
is meant by this, we are then told by means of the epexegetic ti» éyBpavr ; 
hence Paul has not by the figurative 76 yec6r. rod dpaypov Aicac merely wished 
to express the (negative) conception that Christ has done away with the iso- 
lation of the O. T. commonwealth.* De Wette censures the ‘extreme 
tameness” of the explanation, according to which 76 peoér. «.7.A. is taken not 
as a designation of the Jaw, but as a preliminary designation of the éy8pa. 
But the twofold designation of the matter, describing it first figuratively 
and then properly, is in keeping with the importance of the idea, the direct 
expression of which produces after the previous figure an effect the more 
striking. —To take the genitive in an adjectival sense, as equivalent to 76 
usodroLyov diagpdcoor,” is wrong, because the characteristic adjective notion 
is implied in 7d peodrouyov, which has been felt also by Castalio and Beza, 


divine oikovopia. 


1“ Ver. 14-18 ipse verborum tenere et 
quasi rhythmo canticum imitatur,” ‘‘ He 
imitates poetry by the very tenor and as it 
were rhythm of the words,” Bengel. 

2 [** He personally, as in Micah v. 4,” De- 
litzsch, Zuth. Zeitschr. 1878, p. 3; also 
Holtzmann, p. 244.—Schinidt.] 

3 Hofmann. 

4 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 109 [E. T. 125]. 

5 Wetstein in loc. ; Schittgen, Horae, II. 
p. 18. 

®In opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. 


II. 1, p. 874, who, at variance with the con- 
text, understands cipyvn primarily in rela- 
tion to God ; similarly Calovius and others. 

7 Grotius : yevn. 4 

® «at, see Winer, p. 388 ; Fritzsche, Quaest. 
Lue. p. 9 f. 

®° As Hofmann, Schriftbew. Tl. 1, p. 375, 
holds, refining on 7d peodr. 7. bp., and con- 
necting thy €x@pav with katapyyoas. 

10 Vorstius, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Ro- 
senmiiller, Meier, and others. 

11 Paries intergerinus, found elsewhere 


CHAPS) TL, la: 383 


inasmuch as they erroneously translated it as though rév ¢paypdv tod peco- 
toiyov were used. <A reference, we may add, to a definite gpayudc, which 
underlies the figurative expression, is not to be assumed, since the words 
furnish nothing of the sort, and any kind of fence serving as a partition- 
wall illustrates the éy3pa. Some have thought of the stone screen which in 
the temple-enclosure marked off the court of the Gentiles, and the inscrip- 
tion of which forbade every Gentile from farther advance.’ But at most 
this could only be assumed, without arbitrariness, if that screen had 
statedly borne the name of gpayuéc. Other references, still more foreign to 
the matter, which have been introduced, such as to the Jewish districts in 
large towns, which were marked off by a wall or otherwise,? may be seen in 
Wolf. Among the Rabbins, too, the figure of a fence is in very frequent 
use. See Buxtorf, s.v. 10.—A2tcac] in the sense of throwing down,° 
belongs to the figure, and is not chosen on account of the r#v éySpav, which 
does not come in till afterwards, although it would be chosen switably there- 
to.1—It has been wrongly designated as an un-Pauline idea, that Christ 
through His death should have united the Jews and Gentiles by means of 
the abolition of the law.®° This union has in fact taken place as a raising of 
both into a higher unity, vv. 16, 18, 21 f. ; hence that doctrinal principle 
is sufficiently explained from the destination of Paul as the apostle to the 
Gentiles and his personal experience, and from his own elsewhere attested 
universalism, and need not have as a presupposition the post-apostolic 
process of development on the part of the church gradually gathering itself 
out of heterogeneous elements into a unity, so as to betray a later ‘‘ cathol- 
icizing tendency.” * 

Ver. 15. Tjv éySpav] This, still included in dependence upon 2icac, is 
now the yeodro.yov broken down by Christ : (namely) the enmity. Itis, 
after the example of Theodoret,* understood by the majority * of the Mosaic 
law asthe cause of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, in which case the 
moral law is by some included, by others excluded. But, in accordance 
with ver. 14, the reader is led to nothing else than the opposite of eipfrn, 
7.é., to the abstract enmity ; and in the sequel, indeed, the abolition of the 
law is very definitely distinguished from the destruction of the enmity (as 
means from end). Hence the only mode of taking it, in harmony with the 
word itself and with the context, is: the enmity which existed between Jews and 
the Gentiles, comp. ver. 16. So Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Cornelius & La- 
pide, Bengel, and others, including Riickert and Bleek ; while Hofmann 
turns the notion of éy3pa into the mere araddotpiwose of ver. 12, and, refer- 


only in Eratosthenes quoted by Athen. vii. 3 Wetstein, ad Joh. ii. 19. 
p. 281 D, in Hesychius under «arqAus, and in 4 See Wetstein én loc. 
the Fathers. In Athen. Z.c. it is masculine: 5 See Schwegler, /.c. p. 889 f. 
Tov THs Noovys Kat apeTHs mecoToLxov. 6 Baur. 
1 Josephus, Bell. v. 5. 2, vi. 2.4; Antt. viii. 7 Comp. teves in Chrysostom. 
3. 2f., xv. 11.5, al.; Middoth, ii. 8. So An- 8 Including Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Clari- 


selm, Ludoy. Cappellus, Hammond, Bengel, us, Grotius, Calovius, Morus, Rosenmiiller, 
Wetstein, Krebs, Bretschneider, Holzhau- Flatt, Meier, MHolzhausen, Baumgarten- 
sen. and others. Crusius, de Wette. 

2 Schottgen and others. 


384 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 


ring it to the estrangement on the part of the Gentiles towards the theocra- 
cy hated by them, removes the distinctive mark of reciprocity demanded 
by the context. Quite erroneously, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumen- 
ius, and lately Harless, hold that the enmity of the Jews and Gentiles 
towards God is meant. In accordance with the context, ver. 14, the peod- 
rotyov can, in fact, only be one separating the Jews and Gentiles from 
each other, and not something which separates both jrom God; and how 
mistaken is such a view also on account of what follows ! for the Mosaic 
law might be conceived of as producing enmity towards God so far doubt- 
less as the Jews are concerned (1 Cor. xv. 56 ; Rom. vy. 20, vii. 13 ; Gal. iii. 
19), but never as respects the Gentiles, who stood aloof from all relation to 
the Mosaic law (Rom. ii. 12). [See Note XXIV., p. 401.] — év rH capxi airov] 
does not belong to ryv éypav (as Lachmann [and Westcott and Hort] also 
punctuates it) so that ‘‘ the national hatred in His people” would be meant ;? 
nor yet to 2t%cac,* because in that case this mention of the death of Jesus 
would be irrelevantly dissevered fromthe modal definition rév véuov katapyq- 
cac, to which, in the nature of the case, it belongs as an essential element ; 
but it stands with an emphasis suitable to the context (comp. avroc yap, ver. 
14) at the head of the specification that now follows, in what way Christ has 
effected what was said in ver. 14 by airic yap éorw . . . eydpav : so that He 
by His flesh has done away with the law, namely, when He allowed His flesh 
to be crucified (Col. i. 21 f.), dissolved thereby the tie with the law that 
brought men under curse (see on Gal. iii. 13), and thus opened up the justi- 
fication through faith (Rom. iii. 21 ff.), whereby the institution of the law was 
emptied of its binding power (comp. Rom. x. 4 ff. vii. 1 ff.; Col. 17.14). The 
moral commands also of the law had thereby, while not ceasing to be valid, 
ceased to be held as constituent elements of the law-institute as such justifying 
in the way of compliance with it ; and its fulfilment, and that in augmented 
power, now proceeds from the new vital principle of faith (Rom. vill. 4), 
on which account Christ, although He is the end of the law (Rom. x. 4; 
comp. 2 Cor. ili. 11), could nevertheless say that He had come ‘to fulfil the 
law (Matt. v. 17), and Paul could assert : véuov iorauev, Rom. ii. 31. Hof- 
mann imports into the év rj capi airov the thought : in and with the doing 
away of His life in the flesh, in respect of which He was an Israelite, Christ 
has rendered the appertaining to His community independent of the relig- 
ious-legal status of an Israelite. As though the atoning death of Christ, in the 
usual dogmatic sense of the apostle, had not been most distinctly indicated al- 
ready before by the év r¢ ainate rod Xpiotov, ver. 18, as afterwards by the azox- 
ara2Aagy k.T.A., ver. 16, and by the zpocaywyf, ver. 18! This meaning is not 
here, any more than at Col. i. 21 f., to be exegetically modified or explained 
away. — Tov évtoAav év déyuant| to be taken together, yet not in such a way that 
év stands for oy * or xai,* but as : thelaw of the commandments consisting in 
injunctions, whereby the dictatorial character of the legal institute (as a 
whole, not merely partially, as Schenkel imports) is exhibited, The geni- 


1 Chrysostom, Bugenhagen, Schulthess, Riickert, and others. 
Engelwelt, p. 193. 3 Flatt. 


*Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, 4 Koppe, Rosenmiiller. 


CHAP Mtl. Lo, 385 
tive tév évtoAdv denotes the contents of the law, and éy déywac the essential 
form in which the évrodai are given. The connecting link of the article 
(rav) before év déyuaor was not requisite, since we may correctly say : évré2- 
AcoVal ri év Séypwate Or éevroAny diddvae év déyuari, and therefore évroAyy év déypate 
may be conjoined so as to form one conception.’ Comp. oniii. 13; Rom. vi. 4; 
Gal. iv. 14, iii. 26. This view of the connection is adopted, after the precedent 
of many older expositors, by Riickert, Matthies, Meier, Winer, pp. 123, 197, 
Bisping, Schenkel, Bleek [Ewald, Opitz, Weiss, Bibl. Theol.].? If one 
should 2 refer év déyu. to katapyhoac, there would result—even apart from the 
fact that with our mode of connecting év 77 capxi airot, this construction is 
not even possible—the wholly untrue and un-Pauline thought that Christ 
has through injunctions abolished the law. No doubt some have imputed to 
év dédyuact the sense praecepta stabiliendo, ‘‘ by establishing the precept,” 4 in 
doing which they had in view the evangelical doctrine of faith and the gra- 
tia universalis.® But even thus the sense remains untrue and un-Pauline, 
seeing that the doing away of the law has taken place not at all in a doctri- 
nal way, but by the fact of the death of Christ (Rom. vii. 1 f.; Gal. ili. 13 ; 
Col. ii. 14). And what a change would be made in the meaning of the 
word déyua, which in the N. T. signifies throughout nothing else than in- 
junction (Col. ii. 4 ; Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 7, xvi. 4; comp. Plat. Legg. i. 
p. 644 D ; Xen. Anad. iii. 3. 5, vi. 6. 8 ; Dem. 774. 19 ; Herodian, i. 7. 6 ; 
4 Mace. iv. 23 f.) ! The distinction ought not to have been overlooked be- 
tween évroAy# and déyua, which latter puts the meaning of the former into the 
more definite form of the enjoining decree. A peculiar view is taken by 
Harless® likewise connecting év déyu. with catapyjoac, and holding that év 
denotes the ‘‘side on which that efficacy of the death of Christ exerts it- 
self ;’ Christ did not render the law ineffectual in any such capacity as 
okay TOV peAAdvToV, OY AS Taidaywydv sic Xpiordv, ‘‘a shadow of things to 
come,” or ‘‘as a schoolmaster unto Christ,” but on the side of the ddyuara." 
Incorrectly, because déyuacc must of necessity have had the article, and be- 
cause it is nowhere taught that the law is done away only in a single respect. 


1 There is consequently no need whatever 
for the evasive view of Theile (in Winer’s 
Fxeget. Stud. I. p. 188 ff.), which is arbitrary 
and makes the meaning of the expression 
simply ambiguous, that Paul has not added 
the article, because ev ddyn. is to be con- 
ceived of in the like relation to Tov vouor as 
to t&v évTodAay. 

2 Several of the older expositors, never- 
theless, explained: legem mandatorum in 
decretis sitam, ‘the law of commandments 
fixed in decrees”’ (Erasmus, comp. Castalio, 
Beza, Calvin, and others), so that they con- 
nected év doyu. with tov voxov. But in that 
case rov must of necessity have stood before 
ev Soyuz. And to excuse the absence of the 
article ‘Sob congeriem articulorum,” ‘‘ on ac- 
eount of the accumulation of articles” 
(Erasmus), is arbitrary. How often have 


25 


classical writers accumulated articles! 
Plato, Philed. p. 33 A; Dem. Ol. iii. 11, and 
many others. They avoid only the coming 
together of the same article, ¢.g. 76 76 (Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Rep. pp. 332 C, 598 B). 
Comp. also Buttmann, newt. Cr. p. 80 [E. T. 
92]. 

3 With the Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, Pe- 
lagius, Chrysostom, and his successors, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Estius, 
Bengel, Holzhausen, and others, including 
Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. ii. p. 168 f. 

4 Fritzsche. 

5 See Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsues- 
tia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Estius, Ben- 
gel, and others. 

® Followed by Olshausen. 

7**In reference to the commanding form 
of its precepts,”? Olshausen, 


386 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


The Mosaic legal institute as swch, and not merely from a certain side, has in 
Christ its end (Rom. x. 4); the cma tov peddrdvrov, ‘shadow of things to 
come,” in the law has only a transient typical destination (see on Col. ii. 17), 
and the work of the ra:daywyédc, ‘‘ schoolmaster,” is at an end with the at- 
tainment of maturity on the part of his pupils (Gal. iii. 24 f.).- Incorrect 
also is the view of Hofmann, p. 377, who, likewise taking év déyyao. as mo- 
dal definition to xarapyfoac, and for the expression with év comparing 1 Cor. 
ii. 7, finds the meaning : by the very fact that Christ has put an end to pre- 
cepts generally, He has invalidated the O. T. law of commandments. The 
statement that Christ has put an end to déyyata generally, i.e., to commanding 
precepts in general, is at variance with the whole N. T., which contains num- 
berless definite commands, and, in particular, with the teaching of Paul, 
who even places Christianity as a whole under the point of view, Rom. iii. 
27, ix. 31, Gal. vi. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 21, of a véuo¢ (which, without déyyara, is 
not at all conceivable '), and specially with Col. ii. 14. Paul would at least 
have made a limiting addition to éy déyyaor, and have written something 
like év déyuaoe dovreiag (comp. Rom. vili. 15 ; Gal. iv. 24, v. 1). —iva rode 
dio... eiphvnv| a statement of the object aimed at in the just expressed ab- 
rogation of the law, which statement of aim corresponds to what has been 
said concerning Christ in ver. 14, more precisely defining and confirming 
the same. MHarless arbitrarily passes over what immediately precedes, and 
holds that iva. . . eipfvyv expresses the design of 6 roujoac Ta auddrepa Ev, In 
which case too, we may add, there would result a tautological relation of 
the thought. — rov¢ dio] The Jews and Gentiles, who before were designated 
in accordance with the general category under a neuter form, are here con- 
ceived of concretely as the two men under discussion, of whom the one is the 
totality of the Jews, and the other that of the Gentiles, out of which two 
men Christ has made a single new man. This is the collective subject of 
the kaw xricwc, Gal. vi. 15 (the whole body of Christians). — éy éavr@] is 
neither, with Grotius, to be taken as: per doctrinam suam, ‘‘ by his doc- 
trine,” nor, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, as equivalent to dv 
favrov, ‘‘ by himself,” ? but it affirms that the unity to be brought about out 
of the two by the new creation was to be founded in Christ Himself, that is, 
was to have the basis of its existence and continuance in Him, and not in 
any other unifying principle whatever. In the case, namely, of all individ- 
uals, from among the Jews and Gentiles, who form the one new man, the 
death of Christ is that, wherein this new unity has its causal basis ; without 
the death of the cross it would not exist, but, on the contrary, the two 
would still be just in the old duality and separation as the Jew and the 
Greek. Calvin well remarks that in se ipso, ‘‘in himself,” is added ‘‘ne al- 
ibi quam in Christo unitatem quaerant,” ‘that they should not seek unity 
elsewhere than in Christ.” Comp. Gal. iii. 28. [See Note XXV., p. 401.] 
This union, negatively conditioned by the abolition of the law, and having 
its basis in the self-sacrifice of Christ, is positively accomplished as regards 

1 The éd6yuara of Christianity are the true 2 Oecumenius : ov dc’ ayyeAwy H G@AAwY TLVOY 


det mapovta Soynata, ‘‘ always present de- dvvanewrv, ‘neither through angels nor any 
crees,’’ Plato, 7heaet. p. 158 D. other powers.” 


CHAP. II., 16. 387 


the subjects through the Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 18. Comp. subsequently ver. 18. 
But objectively accomplished—namely, as a fact before God and apart from 
the subjective appropriation by means of the Spirit—it is already by virtue 
of the death, which Christ has undergone for the reconciliation of both par- 
ties, Jews and Gentiles, with God; see ver. 16. —xaw6v] For this one is now 
neither Jew nor Greek, which the two, out of which the one has been made, 
previously were; but both portions have laid aside their former religious and 
moral attitude, and without further distinction have obtained the quite new 
nature conditioned by Christian faith. Is xawév had not been added, ei¢ 
avdpwroc might be incorrectly conceived of as an amalgam of Jew and 
Gentile. To exclude, we may add, from xawvév the moral element’ is not 
merely arbitrary, but, according to the apostolic way of looking at mat- 
ters, even impossible, 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. iv. 27, vi. 14 f., v. 6. — roy 
eipivyv| Present participle, because the establishment of peace as what was 
duly to set in with the designed new creation, was implied in the very scope 
thereof ; it was that which was to be brought about in and with it. Observe 
that rocdv eipfvyv is spoken from the standpoint of the design expressed in 
iva Tovc dbo x.t.A., and is included as belonging to what is designed ; conse- 
quently : so that He (by this new creation) makes peace (not made peace). 
elpyvy is, in accordance with the context, the opposite of éySpa, ver. 15, 
consequently peace of the two portions with each other, not : with God,?* 
nor: mpdc Tov Oedv Kai Tpd¢ aArAHrove, ‘‘ with God and with one another.” * 

Ver. 16. Continuation of the sentence expressive of the design. Christ 
has by His death done away with the law, in order to make the Jew and 
the Gentile into one new man (ver. 15), and (and consequently) so to accom- 
plish the reconciliation of both with God, that they should as one body be recon- 
ciled with God through the cross, after He has slain thereon the enmity which 
hitherto existed between them. —«ai| is the and of the sequence of thought ; 
from what was before said resulted the way and manner of the reconciliation 
of the two with God ; hence also azoxaradi. is prefixed. — aroxaradidcow, 
only here and Col. i. 20 ; in the other Greek writings only xara2?.dcow is pre- 
served, which is not distinguished from diaAAdoow.* The composition with 
arxé may, after the analogy of other compounds with azé (comp. aroKavi- 
orn, aroxatoptdu, al.), denote again ;*® but it may also (comp. azodavudta, 
arovepareta, al.), strengthen the notion of the reconciliation. The latter is 
better adapted to the context (év évi céuat: ; and see ver. 18). In oppo- 
sition to Hofmann’s conversion of the notion into that of the restoration 
of fellowship with God, see on Col. i. 20. We may add that droxaraaA does 
not apply to the mutual reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles,® but, as the ex- 
press r@ OeG says (Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20), to the reconciliation of 
both with God, whose wrath, namely, against sinners Christ has by His 


1 Meier, comp. Riickert. “He brought again into one flock,” also 

2 Harless. Harless [and Cremer, Worterbuch]. 

§ Chrysostom, Oecumenius. 6 Grotius, according to whom 7 @e@ is 

¢ In opposition to Tittmann, Synon. p. 101; then equivalent to wt Deo serviant / “that 
see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff. they may serve God.” 


5 Calvin: ‘‘ reduxerit in unum gregem,”’ 


388 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

iAaorhprov changed into grace. Comp. on Col. i. 21; 2 Cor. v. 18; Rom. 
v. 10. — rode audorépove] not again tovc dio, because they are now conceived 
as united, comp. vv. 14, 18. —év évi céuatc] is held by Chrysostom, Theo- 
doret, Theophylact, Beza, Calovius, Calixtus, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae, 
Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, Harless, Hofmann, Lechler, and others, 
to be the body of Christ ; by the offering up of one body both are recon- 
ciled with God. But how superfluous in that case would the d:a rot oravpot be! 
Moreover, Christ is in fact the subject, and how could it be said of Christ 
that by a single body He has reconciled both with God, or—as Hofmann 
gives to the meaning a turn quite departing from the N. T. and especially 
the Pauline doctrine of atonement—that He has made a single body (His 
body, namely) to be their unity embracing them in the like fellowship of 
God,’ since in fact the case of a plurality of bodies on the part of Christ was 
not even as an abstraction conceivable ? This inappropriateness, hardly 
excusable by the reference to rob¢ audorépove and not removed by the pure 
invention of a contrast to the many bodies offered up under the O. T.,* 
would only cease to be felt, if God were the subject, so that Paul might say 
that God had by the surrender of.one body reconciled the two (2 Cor. v. 18 ; 
Col. i. 21) with Himself. Hence Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, Photius, Anselm, 
Erasmus, Bucer, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Grotius, 
Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Winer, Bleek, have rightly found in é» céua the 
unum corpus, ‘‘one body,” which is formed of the Jews and Gentiles united 
into a cic Kawwde avIpuroc. Comp. on év cua, Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. x. 17; 
Eph. iv. 4; Col. iii. 15. Christ has reconciled the two in one body, i.e., 
constituting one body without further separation—the two portions of 
humanity as one whole—unto God. How entirely is this mode of taking it 
in keeping with the whole context ! See especially vv. 14, 15. — droxreivac 
thy ExSpav év aiza] after he shall have slain, ete. ; for it is inserted in the 
second half of the affirmation of design which begins with the iva of ver. 15, 
so that it is correlative to the roy eiphyyv of the first half. 
Grotius correctly observes : ‘‘idem hic valet, quod modo jicac, sed crucis 
facta mentione, aptior fuit translatio verbi azoxteivac, quia crux mortem 
adfert,” ‘‘ Here the same applies as above to Atoac, but when mention of 
the cross is made, the use of the word dzoxteivac is more fitting, because 
the cross brings death.” And the éy%pa (here personified) is not to be ex- 


On aroxr. 


1 Hofmann, after Tertull. c. Marc. v. 1%, 
attaches it to the following amoxr., by 
which, however, the emphasis that mani- 


aroxt., and to refer back év ait to the &v 
o®ua, The simply correct rendering is giv- 
en, é.g., in the version of Castalio: “wt in 


festly lies on amoxr. is pushed forward to 
Sa TOU oTavpod. 

2 “*Tn His person subsists the newness of 
human nature for them, and in His body, 
wherein [as a bodilyliving man] Hehas gone 
unto God, they have the place where man- 
kind is restored to communion with God,” 
Hofmann, p. 380. With this explaining 
away of the atonement it was no doubt 
consistent to connect 6a tod cravpod with 


sese ex Quobus conderet unum novum hominem 
Faciendo pacem, et ambos uno in corpore rec- 
onciliaret Deo per erucem peremtis in ea inim- 
icitiis,” ‘that in Himself He might produce 
one new man by making peace, and that 
He might reconcile both in one body to God 
by means of the cross, the enmity being re- 
moved in it.” 

3 Calovius. 


GHAR, Wey life 389 


plained otherwise than in ver. 14 ; hence not the Jaw,’ nor the hostile rela- 
tion of the Jews and Gentiles towards God,* but the enmity of the two 
towards each other. The aim of the apostle was not to explain the nature of 
the atonement in general as such, but to show how Christ has reconciled 
with God the Jews and Gentiles combined into unity, and to this end it was 
pertinent to say that He had cancelled the enmity which had hitherto sub- 
sisted between them. The aorist participle, we may add, affirms not some- 
thing simultaneous with azoxataAd. (ita ut interficeret, ‘so that he might 
slay,” but something preceding (after that He has slain), so that the relation 
of time is conceived of otherwise than in the case of the correlative ro:av 
eipivyv, ver. 15. Paul, namely, has conceived the matter thus : Christ has 
desired by His death on the cross to cancel the mutual enmity between 
Jews and Gentiles (see on ver. 15), and then by means of this death to rec- 
oncile both, who should now in this manner be united into one aggregate, 
év évi cOuate With God. In reality these are indeed only different sides of 
the effect of the death of Christ on the cross, not separate and successive 
effects ; but in the representation unfolding the subject, in which Paul will 
here, as in a picture, set the matter before us in its various elements, they 
appear so, and this isin keeping with the whole solemn pathos which is 
shed over the passage. — év air@] 7.€., on the cross. The reference to cauari® 
falls with the correct explanation of év év? céuatr. The reading év éavtd 
(F G, 115, codd. in Jer. Arab. pol. Vulg. It. Goth. Syr. p. Ambr. Aug.) 
would yield the same sense as that reference to céuat:, but isa conformation 
to ver. 15, in accordance with which Luther also translated ‘‘ through Him- 
self.” 

Ver. 17. After Christ has established peace, He has come and has also 
proclaimed it, to the Gentiles and the Jews. This proclamation, namely, 
cannot be regarded as preceding the fact by which the peace was established, 
so that é406v would apply to the bodily advent of Christ upon earth,* and the 
connection with ver. 14 would be: ‘‘ Christ is peace in deed (ver. 14) and 
word (ver. 17) ; He not only ts peace, but He proclaimed it Himself at His 
appearing on earth,” Harless. For, when it is said in ver. 14, aitd¢ yap éorw 
7 eipyvn jjuav, the time thought of is, as vv. 14-16 show, the time after the 
crucifixion of Christ, through which and since which He is our peace, so 
that cai éAdav «.7.2. does not merely attach itself to atric yap éorw 7% eipivy 
qjua@v and leave all that intervenes out of view ; but, on the contrary, this 
intervening matter is so essentially bound up with airéc y. é. 7 eip. ju., that 
now «ai éAVOv «.7.A. can introduce not a zpérepov, but only a torepov of the 
crucifixion, annexing as it does the further course of the matter. Rightly, 
therefore, most expositors have understood in éadév an advent following the 
crucifixion of Christ, in connection with which either the resurrection of 
Christ has been thought of,®° or His having come in His spirit,® or in the 


1 Michaelis, Koppe, Holzhausen. 4 Chrysostom, Anselm, Estius, Holzhau- 
2 Most expositors, including Riickert, sen, Matthies, Harless. 

Meier, Harless, Hofmann. 5 Bengel, Riickert. 
3 Bengel, Semler, Hofmann, following § Olshausen. 


Tertullian. 


390 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

preaching that took place through the apostles (so most), in which latter 
view 2a3évis wrongly by many, as Raphel, Grotius, Wolf, Zachariae, Koppe, 
Rosenmiiller,! regarded as without significance ; it is in truth an ‘‘insigne 
verbum,” ‘‘a remarkable word,” Bengel. The correct explanation (comp. 
ver. 18) is given by Olshausen.? In the Holy Spirit, namely, not only ac- 
cording to John (John xiv. 18, al.), but also according to Paul, Christ Him- 
self has come (in so far as it is Christ's Spirit) from heaven to those who 
have received the Spirit, and dwells and rules in them (Rom. viii. 9, 10; 
2 Cor. iii. 17, xiii. 5 ; Gal. ii. 20), and this proclamation has taken place at 
the instance of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 16), and through the Spirit Himself 
(Rom. xv-18; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3). The point of time expressed by 
ebjyyeaicaro is the conversion of the persons concerned, at which they received 
the Spirit (Gal. iii. 2; Eph. i. 13). Accordingly, the apostle could, with- 
out writing at variance with history, name first the readers as original 
Gentiles (juiv roic paxpév), and then the Jews ; for when the Ephesians 
became Christians, there had already long since been converted not merely 
Jews, but Gentiles and Jews. Had he, on the other hand, meant the actual 
coming of Christ upon earth and His oral preaching, the historical necessity 
would have presented itself of mentioning jirst those that were near and 
then tl.ose that were afar off. — We may add that the conerete and vividly 
depicting expression é20dv ebyyy. can the less occasion surprise, as the 
whole passage bearsa pathetic impress. Comp. also Acts xxvi. 23. — elpqvyy 
has been, from the time of Chrysostom, ordinarily explained of peace with 
God, while only a few, as Estius and Koppe, suppose peace with each other 
to be included ; but Olshausen rightly understands the latter alone, as does 
also Bleek. Only this is in keeping with the whole connection (see, more- 
over, the immediately preceding azoxr. tiv éy8pav, and comp. ver. 19), and, 
moreover, has ver. 18 not against it, but in its favor (see on ver. 18).— 
huiv toi¢ waxpav and roic éyyi'¢] (both to be explained in accordance with ver. 
12, and comp. Isa. lvii. 19) are dependent on einyyedicaro,—the view which 
immediately and most naturally suggests itself. Harless would attach both 
very closely to eip#v_v,—a course to which he was impelled by his explana- 
tion of éAvdv eiyyy., in order not to present the apostle as saying what is in- 
consistent with history (Matt. xv. 24, comp. x. 5 f. ; John x. 16; Matt. 
xxi. 48, a/.). But the inconsistency with history would still remain.*—The 
repetition of eipfivnv (see the critical remarks) has rhetorical emphasis, John 
xiv. 27; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398]. This éxyovg of the expres- 
sion, however,‘ excludes the view of Wieseler, p. 444, that roic éyyi¢ also is 
in apposition to iuiv, and means specially the Jewish-Christians in Hphesus. 


1 Comp. Meier. 

2Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and de 
Wette, also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 
p. 475, and Bleek. 

3 Tf Paul had understood éA8. evyyy. in the 
sense of Harless, he must at all events have 
written eip. rots éyyds Kk. eip. Duty Tols waxpar. 
Harless himself has paraphrased (comp. 
Erasm. Paraphr.): “‘The contents of his 


message was a peace which availed for all, 
Jews as well as Gentiles.” Evidently under 
an involuntary sense of the historical rela- 
tion, but in opposition to the words, ac- 
cording to which Harless ought to have par- 
aphrased ; “availed for all, Gentiles as well 
as Jews.’ 
4 Nigelsbach on Hom. J1/. i. 436. 


CHAP MET. .18: 19: a91 


Ver. 18. Proof from an appeal to fact for what has just been said : einyy. 
elphvav buiv Tt. paKkp. kK. eip. Toic éyyic. In this case the main stress of the 
proof lies in oi dudérepor év évi rveiu. Tf, namely, through Christ, both in 
One Spirit have the xpocaywy# to the Father, to both must the same news, 
that of peace, have been imparted by Him. This is the necessary historic 
premiss of that happy state of unity now actually subsistent through Christ. 
He must have proclaimed eipyvy to the one as to the other ; of this Paul now 
gives the probatio ab effectu, ‘‘ proof from the effect.” Others hold that érz 
introduces the contents of the message of peace.’ But the contents are fully 
expressed in the eip#vy itself, agreeably to the context ; hence, too, we may 
not say, with Riickert, that the essence of the eipivy is explained. Accord- 
ing to Harless, the truth of that proclamation is shown from the reality of the 
possession. But in this way a subsidiary thought (namely, that the procla- 
mation was ¢rue) is introduced not merely arbitrarily, but also unsuitably (for 
the truth of that which has been proclaimed was self-evident). — rj xpo- 
caywynv| Christ is not conceived of as door,* which is remote from the con- 
text, but as bringer ; in which case there may be an allusion to the Oriental 
custom of getting access to the king only through a xpocaywyei¢ (see on 
Rom. v. 2), but not to sacrificial processions in accordance with Herod. ii. 58, 
which would be an unsuitable comparison. Before’ Christ had tecenciled 
men with God, communion with God was, on account of the wrath of God 
(ver. 3; Rom. v. 10), denied to them ; Christ by His itaorf#piov removed 
this obstacle, and thus became the rpocaywyetc, through the mediation of 
whom (6: avrowv) we now and henceforth have the bringing near* unto God. In 
substance the having the zpocaywy7 to God is not different from the cipiyy 
mpoc Tov Oedv (Rom. v. 1), and from the filial relationship of the reconciled. It 
is the consequence of the atoning death of Jesus; the peaceful relation of 
believers towards God, brought about through this death. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 
18. Here, moreover, as at Rom. v. 2, the notion of bringing towards, which 
the world has, is not to be interchanged with that of approach or access,° 
as though zpécodov were written in the text. Christ by the continuous 
power and eflicacy of His atoning act is the constant Bringer to the Father. 
Comp. iii. 12. —év évi rvetuati] for the Holy Spirit is to both one and the 
same element of life (comp. on Rom. viii. 15), apart from which they can- 
not have the zpocaywyy to God. The referring of it to the human spirit ° 
ought to have been precluded by taking note of the Divine 7Zrias in our 
passage (dt avrov, év él rvebtmate, mpoc Tov TaTépa); Comp. vv. 12, 22. 
— Observe, further, the difference of meaning between the éyouev (denoting 
the continuously present possession of the signal benefit) and the écyjxayev 
of Rom. v. 2 (see on the latter passage). 

Ver. 19. "Apa oiv] draws the inference from vy. 14-18 ; and this infer- 
ence is the same in its tenor with what was said at ver. 18, but is car- 


1 Baumgarten, Koppe, Morus, Flatt. 5 As still by Riickert, Harless, Bleek. 
2 John x. 7; Beza, Calvin. 6 Ono8vuasdor, ‘* with one accord,’’ Anselm, 
3 Meier. Homberg, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Rosen- 


SeDhwe: 1. 82) Polyb. 1x. 421) xii 74 107; miiller, 
Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 45. 


392 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

ried out in more detail ; for this is just what was to be proved ver. 14 
ff., —£évor] é.e., such as are not included as belonging to the theocracy, but are 
related towards it as strangers, who belong to another state ; the opposite is 
cuurodira: Tov dyiov. Comp. ver. 12, The same is indicated by répocxo: : 
inquilini,' i.e., those who, coming from elsewhere, sojourn in a land or 
city without having the right of citizenship (Acts vii. 6, 29 ; 1 Pet. ii. 
11).2 It is the same as is expressed in classic Greek by jérockou,? in contra- 
distinction to the roAirye or aoréc.4 [See Note XXVI., p. 401.] The Gen- 
tiles are in the commonwealth of God only “inquilini, sojourners, not 
citizens ; they have no zodureia therein ; although they are ruled by God 
(Rom. iii. 29) and included in the Messianic promise (Rom. iv, 12 f.), they 
are so in the second place (Rom. i. 16), and without participating in the 
time-hallowed peculiar prerogatives of the Israelites (Rom. iil. 1, ix. 4 ff). 
The referring of rapocxo: to the conception of a household (persons pertaining 
to the house, members of the family) is not to be made good by linguistic 
usage (not even by Lev. xxii. 10), and is not demanded by the antithesis of 
oikeiot Tov Ocov,® Inasmuch as oixeioe Tov Oeod sustains a climactic relation to 
the preceding cvuroA. tov ayiwv, and the two together form the contrast to 
févoc and xapoixot. The reference to the proselytes ° is quite at variance with 
the context (vv. 11-13). — a/v éoré] emphatic repetition of the verb after 
aAAad. Comp. Rom. vill. 15 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; Heb. xii. 18 ff. — cvprodirar] be- 
longs to the inferior Greek ; Lucian, Soloec. 5 ; Ael. V. H. iii. 44 ; Joseph. 
Antt. xix. 2. 2.7 —rév dyiwr] t.e., of those who constitute the people of 
God. These were formerly the Jews (ver. 12), into whose place, however, 
the Christians have entered as the ’IcpayA tov Ocov (Gal. vi. 16), as the true 
descendants of Abraham (Rom. iv. 10 ff.) and God’s people (Rom. ix. 5 ff.), 
acquired as His property by the work of Christ (see on ix. 14). The 
Ephesians have thus, by becoming Christians, attained to the fellow-citizen- 
ship with the saints,—which saints the Christians were,—so that rév 
dyiwv does not embrace either the Jews ® or the patriarchs,’ with whom even 
the angels have been associated." — cixeior tov Ocov| members of God’s house- 
hold. The theocracy is thought of as a family, dwelling in a house, of 
which God is the olixodeoméryc. 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Heb. iii. 2, 5, 6, x. 21; 
1 Pet. iv. 17. Comp. WV 13, Num. xii. 7 ; Hos. viii. 1. Harless : belong- 
ing to the house of God, as the building-stones of the house, in which God 
dwells. But thus the following figure is anticipated, and that ina way con- 


1 Among Greek writers tdapotxos has not 


this signification, but is equivalent to neigh- 
bor ; it has it, however, in the LXX. (Ex. 
xii. 45; Lev. xxv. 6-23). Comp. maporkia, 
Acts xiii. 17, and in the LXX.; Clem. Cor. 
ii.15; 

2 See, in general, Wetstein, ad Luc. xxiv. 
18; Gesen. Thes. 8.v. awn. 

3 Wolf, prol. Dem. Lept. p. xvi. ff.; Her- 
mann, Staatsalterth. § 115. 

4 Plat. Pol. viii. p. 563 A, al. 

© In opposition to Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, 


Meier, Harless, Olshausen, Schenkel. 

6 Anselm, Whitby, Cornelius & Lapide, 
Calixtus, Baumgarten. 

7 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 172. 

© Vorstius, Hammond, Bengel, Morus. 

° Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
and others; Theodoret: ayiovs évrad@a ov 
MOvoy Tos THS XapLTOs, GAAG Kal TOUS Ev VON@ 
kal Tovs mpd vouov Acyet, ‘* Here by saints he 
refers not only to those of grace, but also to 
those of the law and before the law.” 


10 Calvin, Flatt. 


CHAP, 11s,20: 393 


trary to the meaning of oixezoc ; and an incongruous contrast is afforded to 
the méporxor. 

Ver. 20. The conception oixoc Oeot leads the apostle, in keeping with the 
many-sided versatility of his association of ideas, to make the transition 
from the figure of a household-fellowship, to the figure of a house-structure, 
and accordingly to give to oixeioc Tov Oeov a further illustration, which now is 
no longer appropriate to the former figurative conception, but only to the 
latter, which, however, was not yet expressed in oixeioe rou Ocov. Comp. 
Col. ii. 6, 7. —éroxodoundévtec] namely, when ye became Christians. The 
compound does not stand for the simple term,' but denotes the building wp. 
Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12, 14; Col. ii. 7; Xen. Hist. vi. 5. 12 ; Dem. 1278. 
27. éni, with the dative, however,’ is not here occasioned by the aorist par- 
ticiple,* which would not have hindered the use either of the genitive * or of 
the accusative (1 Cor. iii. 12; Rom. xv. 20) ; but the accusative is not em- 
ployed, because Paul has not in his mind the relation of direction, and it is 
purely accidental that not the genitive of rest, but the dative of rest is em- 
ployed. [See Note XXVII., p. 402. ] — rév azoar. x. rpod. | is taken by Chry- 
sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, Morus, and others, in- 
cluding Meier, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, as genitive of 
apposition ; but wrongly, since the apostles and prophets are not the foun- 
dation, but have Jaid it (1 Cor. iii. 10). The foundation laid by the apostles 
and prophets*® is the gospel of Christ, which they have proclaimed, and by 
which they have established the churches ; see on 1 Cor. iii. 10. ‘‘ Tes- 
timonium apost. et proph. substructum est fidei credentium omnium,” 
““The testimony of the apostles and prophets is the support of the faith 
of all believers,” Bengel. — xpogyrév] has been understood by Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, 
Baumgarten, Michaelis, and others, including Riickert, of the Old Tes- 
tament prophets. That not these, however, but the New Testament proph- 
ets (see on 1 Cor. xii. 10), are intended,® is clear, not indeed from the 
non-repetition of the article, since the apostles and prophets might be 
conceived as one class,’ but (1) from the very order of the words," 
which, especially from the pen of an apostle, would most naturally 
have been rav rpodytav x. arocréAwy ; (2) from the analogy of iil. 5, iv. 11 ; 
and (3) from the fact that the foundation-laying in question can, from 
the nature of the case, only be the preaching of the Christ who has come, 
because upon this foundation the establishment of the church took 


1 Koppe. 7 Xen. Anabd. ii. 2.5: ot ctpatnyot kat Aoxa- 
2 Comp. Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 11. yoc; comp. Saupp. ad Xen. Venat. v. 24; 
3 Harless. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 373. 


4 Hom. JU. xxii. 225; Plato, Legg. v. p. 736 E. 

5 As most expositors, including Koppe, 
Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, Harless, Bleek, 
correctly take it. 

6 Pelagius, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, 
Zachariae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
Harless, Meier, Matthies, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek. 


8 This has been very arbitrarily explained 
by the assertion that the apostles preached 
the gospel immediately, that they possessed 
the greater endowment of grace, that the 
foundation had been no vrecens positum, 
“not been one recently fixed,” and such 
like. See specially Calovius and Estius, 


394 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

place, and in that preaching the old prophetic predictions were used only 
as means (Rom. xvi. 26). Comp. also ver. 21. [See Note XXVIII, p. 402.] 
Harless supposes that the apostles are here called at the same time prophets.? 
In this way, no doubt, the objection of Riickert is obviated, that, im fact, 
the prophets themselves would have come to Christianity only by means 
of the apostles, and would themselves have stood only on the Sepédioc tov 
arooréawv ; but (a) from the non-repetition of the article there by no means 
follows the unity of the persons (see above), but only the unity of the cate- 
gory, under which the two are thought of. (0) There may be urged against 
it the analogy of iv. 11, as well as that in the whole N. T., where the ec- 
clesiastical functions are already distinguished ? and prophets are mentioned, 
apostles are not at the same time intended. It is true that the apostles had of 
necessity to possess the gift of prophecy, but this was understood of itself, 
and they are always called merely apostles, while simply those having re- 
ceived the gift of prophecy, who were not at the same time apostles, are termed 
prophets ; comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28 f. (¢) There would be no reason whatever 
bearing on the matter in hand why the apostles should here be designated 
specially as prophets ; nay, the contrast of Moses and the prophets, arbitrarily 
assumed by Hofmann, would only tell against the identity (Luke xxiv. 27, 
44; Acts xxiv. 14; Johni. 46). That objection of Riickert, however, dis- 
appears entirely when we contemplate the prophets as the immediate and 
principal fellow-laborers in connection with the laying of the foundation 
done primarily by the apostles, in which character they, although them- 
selves resting upon the Geyuédvov of the apostles, yet in turn were associated 
with them as founders. And the more highly Paul esteems prophecy (1 Cor. 
xiv. 1), and puts the prophets elsewhere also in the place next to the apos- 
tles (iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 f.), with so much the more justice might he desig- 
nate the apostles and prophets as laying the foundation of the churches ; and 
the less are we warranted, with de Wette, in finding here traces of a disciple 
of the apostles, who has had before him the results of the apostolic labors as 
wellas the period of the original prophecy as concluded, or with Schwegler ° 
and Baur (p. 438), in recognizing traces of Montanism with its new proph- 
ets as the continuers of the apostolate. — évroc axpoy. avtov ’I. X.] wherein Je- 
sus Christ Himself is corner-stone. On thismost essential point, without which 
the building up in question upon the apostolic and prophetic foundation 
would lack its uniquely distinctive character, hinges the whole completion 
of the sublime picture, vv. 21, 22. The gospel preached by the apostles 
and prophets is the foundation, the basis, upon which the Ephesians were 
built up, z.e., this apostolic and prophetic gospel was preached also at Ephe- 
sus, and the readers were thereby converted and formed into a Christian 


1 So also Riickert on iii. 5, and Hofmann, 
Schriftbew. Il. 2, p. 122. The latter adduces 
as a reason, that pod. is no peculiar N. T. 
designation like aréor. This, however, it 
surely is, namely, in the N. T. sense, for 
which the O. T. word was the most suitable 
vehicle. Philippi also, Glaubenslehre, I. 
p. 288, ed. 2, declares himself in fayor of 


Harless. 

2 This is not yet the case at Matt. xxiii. 34, 
where rather the whole category of Christian 
teachers is still designated by Old Testa- 
ment names. In the parallel Luke xi. 49, 
on the other hand, the apostles are already 
adduced as such by name. 

3 In Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, p. 379. 


CHAP: I., 21: 395 
community ; but the corner-stone of this building is Christ Himself, inas- 
much, namely, as Christ, the historic, living Christ, to whom all Christian 
belief and life have reference, as necessarily conditions through Himself the 
existence and endurance of each Christian commonwealth, as the existence 
and steadiness of a building are dependent on the indispensable corner-stone 
which upholds the whole structure.’ Only as to the figure, not as to the 
thing signified, is there a difference when Christ is here designated as the 
corner-stone, and at 1 Cor. iii. 11 as the foundation. The identity of the 
matter lies in rdv xeiuevov, 1 Cor. U.c. See on that passage. In the figure of 
the corner-stone (which ‘‘ duos parietes ex diverso venientes conjungit et 
continet,” ‘‘ joins and holds two walls coming from different directions,” 
Estius), many have found the union of the Jews and Gentiles set forth.? But 
this is at variance with zdoa oixod., ver. 21, according to which for every 
Christian community, and so also for those consisting exclusively of Jewish- 
Christians or exclusively of Gentile-Christians, Christ is the corner-stone. — 
avtow| does not apply to rd ewediw,* for Christ is conceived of as the corner- 
stone, not of the foundation, but of the building (ver. 21). It belongs to 
"Ijoov Xpiorov, which with this airov is placed emphatically at the end, in 
order then to join on by év 6 «.r.4. that which is to be further said of Christ, 
in so far as He is Himself the corner-stone. The article airoi row’l. X. 
might be used ; Christ would then be conceived of as already present in 
the consciousness of the readers :* it was not necessary, however, to use it ;° 
but the conception is : Christ Himse/f is corner-stone ;° so that Christ Him- 
self, as respects His own unique destination in this edifice, is contradistin- 
guished from His laborers, the apostles and prophets.—Whether, it may be 
asked, is r6 Veuedio masculine (see on 1 Cor. iii. 10) or neuter? It tells in 
favor of the former that, with Paul, it is at 1 Cor. ili. 11 (also 2 Tim. ii. 19) 
decidedly masculine, but in no passage decidedly neuter (Rom. xv. 20; 
1 Tim. vi. 19). Harless erroneously thinks that the neuter is employed by 
the apostle only metaphorically. 

Ver. 21. An elucidation to évto¢ axpoy. aitov I. X., bearing on the matter 
in hand, and placing in yet clearer light the thought of ver. 19 f. : in whom 
each congregation, in whom also yours (ver. 22), organically develops itself unto 
its holy destination." —év ¢] means neither by whom,® nor upon whom,® but : 
in whom, so that Christ (for ¢ applies neither to dxpoy., as Castalio, Estius, 
and Koppe suppose, nor to 7 YeuveAiw, as Holzhausen would have it, but to 
the nearest and emphatic airov ’Ijoov X.) appears as that wherein the joining 


1 On akpoywrtatos, sc. AtGos, Which does not 6 Ii. vi. 450; Xen. Anabd. ii. 1. 5, Apol. 11, 


occur in Greek writers, comp. LXX. Isa. 
XXvlii. 16; Symm. Ps. exvii. 22; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 
on the subject-matter, Matt. xxi. 42. 

2 Theodoret, Menochius, Estius, Michael- 
is, Holzhausen, Bretschneider, and others. 

3 Bengel, Cramer, Koppe, Holzhausen, 
Hofmann, IT. 2, p. 122. 

4 He Himself, Christ; see Fritzsche, ad 
Matth. p. 117. 

5 In opposition to Bengel. 


al. ; see Bornemann, ad Anab. i. 7. 11; Krii- 
ger on Thue. i. 27. 8. 

7 Observe the apostle’s view of the church, 
as a whole and in its single parts, as one 
living organism. Comp. Thiersch, die Kirche 
im apost. Zeitalt. p. 154, 162; Ehrenfeuch- 
ter, prakt. Theol. I. p. 55 ff. 

§ Castalio, Vatablus, Menochius, Morus, 
and others, including Flatt. 

® Estius, Koppe, and others. 


396 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

together of the building has its common point of support (comp. i. 10).— 
zaca oixodouh| not: the whole building,’ which would be at variance with 
linguistic usage, and would absolutely require the reading (on that account 
preferred by Matthies, Winer, and others) raca 7 oixodong (see the eritical 
remarks), but : every building. The former interpretation, moreover, the 
opposition of which to linguistic usage is rightly urged also by Reiche,”’ is 
by no means logically necessary, since Paul was not obliged to proceed from 
the conception of the whole body of Christians to the community of the 
readers (ver. 22), but might pass equally well from the conception ‘‘ every 
congregation,” to the conception ‘‘also ye” (ver. 22), and thus subordi- 
nate the particular to the general. The objection that there is only 
one oixodouf*® is baseless, since the collective body of Christians might 
be just as reasonably, as every congregation for itself, conceived as a 
temple-building. The latter conception is found, as in 1 Cor. iii. 16, so also 
here, where the former is linguistically impossible. Chrysostom, however, is 
wrong in holding that by zaca oixod. is signified every part of the building 
(wall, roof, etc.), since oixodoug rather denotes the aggregate of the single 
parts of the building, the edifice, and since not a wall, a roof, etc., but only 
the building as a whole which is thought of, can grow unto a temple. — 
cvvapyor. | becoming framed together ; for the present participle represents the 
edifice as still in the process of building, as indeed every community is engaged 
in the progressive developement of its frame of Christian life until the Pa- 
rousia (comp. on 1 Cor. iii. 15). The participle is closely connected with 
every building, while its framing together, ¢.e., the harmonious com- 
bination of its parts into the corresponding whole, takes place in Christ, 
grows, etc. The compound ovvapyodoyeiv (with classical writers cvvapyudcew) 
is met with only hereand iv. 16, but dpyodoyeiv in Philipp. Thess. 78. — aber] 
On this form of the present, read in the N.T. only here and at Col. ii. 19, 
but genuinely classical, see Matthiae, p. 541. — ele vadv ayiov| Final result of 
this growth. It is not, however, to be translated : unto a holy temple, for 
the conception of several temples was foreign to the apostle with his Jewish 
nationality, but : unto the holy temple, in-which there was no need of the 
article (see on 1 Cor. iii. 16). To realize the idea of the one temple—that is 
the goal unto which every community, while its organic development of life 


év@: 


1 Oecumenius, Harless, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek. 

2The admissibility of the anarthrous 
form raca oikodouy, in the sense of ‘the 
whole building,” cannot be at all conceded, 


appears, very unsuitably, no doubt (see 
above), to have taken it. According to 
Hofmann, II. 2, p. 123, raca oixod. is meant 
to signify ‘“‘ whatever becomes a constituent 
part of a building” (thus also the Gentiles 


since oixodopzy is neither a proper name, nor 
to be regarded as equivalent to such. See 
Winer, p. 101; Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 78 
[E. T. 86]. In general mas in the sense of 
whole can only be without an article, when 
the substantive to which it belongs would 
not need the article even without mao (Krii- 
ger, § 50,11. 9). Hence aca oixod. can only 
signify either every building, or else a build- 
ing utterly. In the latter sense Chrysostom 


who become Christians). As if oicoSou7 could 
mean constituent part of a building! It sig- 
nifies, even in Matt. xxiv. 1, Mark xiii. 1 f., 
edifice. And as if aaa, every part of the 
building, when in fact only ¢wo constituent 
parts, namely Jews and Gentiles, could be 
thought of, were in harmony with this 
relation ! The rendering is linguistically and 
logically incorrect. 
3 de Wette. 


CHARS Teac 397 


has its firm support in Christ, groweth up. — év kupim] By this not God is 
meant, as Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen, and others suppose, 
but Christ (see the following év ©). By the majority it is connected with 
aytov, in which case it would not have, with Beza, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, 
Flatt, to be taken for the dative, but* would have to be explained of the 
ayiéry¢ of the temple, having its causal ground in Christ, thus specifically Chris- 
tian. But the holiness of the temple lies in the dwelling of God therein (see 
ver. 22) ; it does not, therefore, jirst come into existence in Christ, but is already 
evistent, and the church becomes in Christ that which the holy temple 7s, inas- 
much as in this church the idea of the holy temple realizes itself. Others 
have rightly, therefore, connected it with aife:, although év is not, with 
Grotius, Wolf, e¢ a/., to be translated by per. In the case of every building 
which is framed together in Christ, the growing into the holy temple takes 
place also in Christ (as the one on whom this further development depends). 
The being framed together and the growing up of the building to its sacred 
destination—voth not otherwise than in the Lord. 

Ver. 22. ’Ev ¢] applies to év xvpiw, and is to be explained quite like év ¢ in 
ver. 21. The reference to vady* appears on account of the immediately pre- 
ceding év xvpim arbitrary, and, according to the correct apprehension of zaca 
oixod., aS well as with regard to the following ei¢ xarovxyténpiov k.T.4., impos- 
sible. — cvvorkodoueioe | is indicative, not imperative,* against which vv. 19, 20 
are decisive,* according to which Paul says not what the readers ought to be, 
but what they are; hence he, at ver. 22, attaches in symmetrical relative 
construction the relation of the readers to that which subsists in the case of 
every Christian community, ver. 21. The compound, however, may mean 
either : ye are built along with (the others), comp. 3 Esdr. v. 68 (cvvorkodop- 
foopuev duiv), 80 that the church of the readers would be placed in the same 
category with the other churches (so it is ordinarily understood) ; or: ye 
are builded together, so that civ relates to the putting together of the single 
parts of the building.® The latter isto be preferred, because the parallelism 
of vv. 21 and 22 makes the attaching of different senses to the two compounds 
cvvappoAoy. and cvvocxod. appear groundless. — ei¢ KatotkyrHpiov Tov Ocov| wnto 
the dwelling of God, quite the same, only with a variation of expression, as 
before ei¢ vadv dywov was (comp. Matt. xxiii. 21), and pertaining to ovvoikod. 
The supposition of Griesbach and Knapp, that év ¢ «. i. cvvorxod. is an in- 
terpolation, and ¢i¢ karork. «.7.A. still belongs to aie: ; as, again, the expe- 
dient of Koppe and Riickert, that cic xaroux. rod Ocov Means, in order that a 
dwelling of God may arise; and finally, the assertion of Harless, that xcarouk. 
rov Ocov is not identical with the vade ayioc, but that the individual Christians 
were so termed because God dwells in them and the whole forms a vad¢ éys0c, 


1 So also de Wette, Hofmann, Bleek. 

2 Calixtus, Rosenmiiller, Matthies. 

3 Calvin, Meier. 

4 In and of itself the relative clause would 
not exclude the imperative (in opposition to 
Hofmann). See, ¢.g., Soph. Qed. Col. 735 
(@. 731): dv pyr’ oxvetre, Herod. i. 89. Comp. 


the familiar oic6’ 3 Spacov, and the impera- 
tive often standing after wore. 

§ Comp. Philo, de praem. et poen. p. 928 E: 
oikiay ed cvvwKodounmevynv K. TUYNPLOTLEVY, 
“a house well-built and put together,” 
comp, Thue, i. 938. 3; Dio Cass. xxxix. 61. 


398 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


—are only different forced interpretations, resulting from the linguistically 
unwarranted explanation of the above zaca oixodoug as the whole building. — 
év mvetpare] receives from most expositors an adjectival turn : ‘a spiritual 
temple, in opposition to the stone one of the Jews.”? How arbitrary gen- 
erally in itself ! how arbitrary, in particular, not to refer év rvebuare to the 
Holy Spirit | since we have here, exactly as in ver. 18, the juxtaposition of 
the Divine Trias, while the context presents nothing whatever to suggest 
the contrast with a temple of stone. Harless :? ‘‘a dwelling, which is in the 
indwelling of the Spirit ;” and this, forsooth ! is held to mean : ‘‘ inasmuch 
as the Spirit dwells in them, they are a dwelling of God and of Christ.” But, 
apart from the fact that of this ‘‘ and of Christ” there is nothing whatever in the 
text, in this way év rvebwatt, Which according to the literal sense could only be 
the continens, ‘‘ containing,” would in fact be made the contentum! ‘ that 
which is contained.”’ From this the very analogies, in themselves inappropriate 
(because they are abstracta, ‘‘ abstracts”), which Harless employs : yapa év 
mvebuartt, ayarn év rv., ‘joy in the spirit, love in the spirit,” ought to have 
precluded him. The true view is to connect it not merely with xaroux. tov 
Ocov, but with cvvoikodoueiobe ei¢ katouk. Tod Ocov, and év is instrumental. Ye 
are being builded together unto the dwelling-place of God by virtue of the 
Holy Spirit; in so far, namely, as the latter dwells in your Christian 
congregation (see on 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16 f.; comp. Jas. iv. 
5), and thereby the relation of being the temple of God is brought about 
—a relation, which without this indwelling of the Spirit would not occur, 
and would not be possible. For the Spirit of God is related to the ideal 
temple as the Shechinah to the actual temple, and is the conditio sine qua non 
of the same. Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, likewise connects éy mr. 
only with kato. 7. 0. The objections of Harless to the instrumental ren- 
dering of év are not valid ; for (a) the circumstance that év rvebwate was 
placed only at the end not only very naturally resulted from the parallelism 
with ver. 21, seeing that in ver. 21 there is not contained an element corre- 
sponding to the év rvetats, and consequently this new element is most nat- 
urally appended at the end, but the position at the close imparts. also to the 
év rvev. an unusual emphasis,* comp. also iii. 5 ; and (0) the suggestion that 
mvevua, as the objective medium, must have the article, is incorrect, seeing 
that zveiua, with or without an article (in accordance with the nature of a 
proper noun), is the objective Holy Spirit. 


Norres py AMERICAN Eprror. 


XVI. Ver. 1. évrac vexpove. 


On this view presented by Meyer, Harless remarks: ‘‘ The supposition of 
some, that vexpé¢ here means ‘condemned to death,’ ‘liable to death,’ is en- 
tirely arbitrary, since it has not the least foundation either in Greek or Hebrew.”’ 
Ellicott : ‘‘ The proleptic reference to physical death, viz., ‘ certo morituri’ (Mey.) 


i Riickert. 2 Comp. Meier and Matthies. 3 Kithner, If. p. 625. 


NOTES. 399 


seems irreconcilable with the context. The rAovovoe dv év é2ée1, which seems to 
specify God’s mercy in extending His resurrectionary power, would thus lose 
much of its appropriateness, and the particle cai its proper ascensive force.” 
Braune : ‘‘Spiritual death alone is spoken of, since God is the source of life 
(Ps. xxxvi, 10), and without Him men are in the shadow of death (Matt. iv. 16 ; 
Luke i. 79 ; Matt. viii. 22; Luke xv. 24, 32; Rom. vii. 9, 10). Hadie: ‘* With- 
out putting any polemical pressure on the phrase, we may regard it as spiritual 
death, not liability to death, but actual death... The epithet implies : 1. Pre- 
vious life; 2. Insensibility; 3. Inability.” Against the remark of Cremer : ‘* Were 
we to take vexpéc to denote religious inaction and incapability, we should vio- 
late the connection of the passage which treats of the reception of salvation ;’’ 
we need refer only to the entire argument of the preceding chapter that shows 
that even man’s receptivity for grace proceeds entirely from the divine purpose 
for his salvation. ‘‘ The Scriptures teach that man in sins is not only weak and 
sick, but also entirely dead. As now a man who is physically dead cannot, of 
his own powers, prepare or adapt himself to obtain again temporal life ; so the 
man who is spiritually dead in sins cannot, of his own strength, adapt or apply 
himself to the acquisition of spiritual and heavenly righteousness, unless he be 
delivered and quickened by the Son of God from the death of sin” (Formula of 
Concord, p. 553). 


XVII. Ver. 2. tov dépoc. 


The discussion of this topic by Harless is very full (p. 143-161), thorough 
and discriminating, and his conclusion, that the ajp refers to what is neither 
earth nor heaven, is more plausible than Meyer's supposition that St. Paul 
drew this conception from a Rabbinical source. ‘‘ Without venturing to deny 
that the word may mysteriously intimate a near propinquity of the spirits of 
evil, it may still be said that the limitation to the physical atmosphere (Meyer) 
is aS precarious in doctrine as the reference to some ideal ‘atmosphere belting 
a death-world’ (Eadie), or to the common parlance of mankind (Alford), is too 
vague and undefined”’ (Ellicott). 


XVIII. Ver. 3. réxva dvoee dpyie. 


On Meyer’s discussion, see Eadie: ‘‘The same may be said of Meyer’s inter- 
pretation, ‘through the development of natural disposition;’ for if that disposi- 
tion was natural, its very germs must have been in us at our birth, and what 
is that but innate depravity ?’’ As to the objection ‘‘that the word cannot refer 
to original depravity, because it is only of actual sins that the apostle speaks 
in the preceding clauses,” we may reply with Olshausen, that in this clause 
actual sins are pointed out in their ultimate foundation “‘ in the inborn sinful- 
ness of each individual by his connection with Adam.’’ Harless: ‘The @iicvc 
of an individual thing denotes the peculiarity of its being, which is the result 
of its being, as opposed to every accessory quality; hence gvcee eivat or roveiv Te 
means to be and to do anything by virtue of a state, or an inclination not ac- 
quired but inherent.” To this Alford adds: ‘If this be correct, the expression 
will amount to an assertion on the part of the apostle of the doctrine of origi- 
nal sin. There is from its secondary position no emphasis on gicec ; but its 
dcectrinal force as referring to a fundamental truth otherwise known is not 
thereby lessened. And it is not for Meyer to argue against this by assuming 


400 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


original sin not to be a Pauline doctrine. If the apostle asserts it here, this 
place must stand on its own merits, not be wrested to suit an apparent precon- 
ceived meaning of other passages . . . It would be easy to show that every one 
of them (Rom. i. 18, ii. 8,9, v. 12, vii. 9, xi. 21; Gal. ii. 15) is consistent 
with the doctrine here implied.” Ellicott: ‘‘It must fairly be said that the un- 
emphatic position of géce renders it doubtful whether there is any special con- 
trast to yapits, or any direct assertion of the doctrine of Original Sin ; but that 
the clause contains an indirect, and, therefore, even more convincing assertion 
of that profound truth, it seems impossible to deny.” Riddle: « The attitude 
here taken as respects this fearful fact of a universal natural state of condemnation 
is precisely that which the Scriptures hold towards the question of the exist- 
ence of God: it is not proved but assumed.” To the above it may be added 
that the interpretation of Rom. xi. 16, 21; Gal. ii. 15; 1 Cor. vii.4; Matt. 
xviii. 2 f.; xix. 14 f., indicated by Meyer under (4) and (5), renders the regenera- 
tion of those there mentioned impossible, since it makes of them by nature 
the children of God, and grace is conferred already by generation. The fullest 
treatment of this passage is in Harless, pp. 165-180. 


XIX. Ver. 9. iva x.7.A. 


The prima gratia of the scholastics here mentioned is thns described by 
Melanchthon, Apology of Aug. Conf., p. 86, § 17: ‘The adversaries, not to 
pass by Christ altogether, require a knowledge of the history concerning 
Christ, and ascribe to Him, that He has merited for us that a habit be given, 
or as they say prima gratia, which they understand as a habit, inclining us the 
more readily to love God. . . They imagine that the will can love God ; but 
nevertheless this habit stimulates it to do the same the more cheerfully,’’ 
p. 111, § 41. ‘They err who imagine that he had merited only a prima gratia, 
and that afterward we please God and merit eternal life by our fulfilling of the 
law.” 


XX. Ver. 10. oi¢ mpoeroiwacev 6 Oeoc. 


‘«God, before we were created in Christ, made ready for us, prearranged, pre- 
pared a sphere of moral action, or a road, with the intent that we should walk in 
it, and not leave it ; this sphere, this road was épy)a ayaa” (Ellicott). “ Though 
in such works there be no merit, yet faith shows its genuineness by them. In 
direct antagonism to the Pauline theology is the strange remark of Whitby, 
‘that these works of righteousness God hath prepared us to walk in are con- 
ditions requisite to make faith saving.” ... Works cannot impart any elements 
to faith, as they are not of the same nature with it. The saving power of faith 
consists in its acceptance and continued possession of God’s salvation [i.e., 
Christ’s merit.—Ed.]. Works only prove that the faith we have isa saving faith’”’ 
(Eadie). ‘‘The Holy Ghost in the Ten Commandments shows the regenerate in 
what good works ‘God hath before ordained that they should walk’” (Form. 
of Concord, p. 597). ‘*The source of all good works, the apostle says, is the 
new birth’’ (Ib.). 


XXT. Ver. 11. du6. 


Stier makes the ground of the dé extend still further back, and the point to 
lie especially ‘‘in the miserable condition from which they have now been de- 


NOTES. 401 


livered.”’ Ellicott’s suggestion that it refers “ to the declaratory portion of the 
foregoing paragraph, vy. 1-7 (vv. 7-10 being an argumentative and explana- 
tory addition),” harmonizes with this. Essentially the same, Eadie and Braune. 


XXII. Ver. 11. i76 ti¢ Aeyouévyg mepitops. 


«« The circumcision made with hands in the flesh is designated as a Aeyouévn, 
i.e, as something not real; it is even a xararou (Phil. iii. 3), a mutilation 
without a purpose. Circumcision has not lost any significance in itself, since it 
has been fulfilled in a typical sense’’ (Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of N. T., I. 118). 


XXIII. Ver. 12. ywpi¢ Xpicrov. 


Harless, followed by Ellicott, makes the succeeding clauses explanatory of 
what is contained in these words. Grotius, de Wette, and Hadie interpret it 
as *‘ without the promise of Christ.’” Calovius: ‘ Destitute of faith in Christ, 
and without His saving knowledge.’’ The true interpretation includes this, 
but comprehends still more. For it is the absence also of that personal com- 
munion of man with Christ which is designated as the mystical union, Gal. ii. 
20 ; John xv. 5: Eph. iii. 17. 


XXIV. Ver. 15. rv éyOpav. 


The context points to the enmity of man towards God which lies back of 
this enmity of Jew and Gentile, to which primary reference is here made 
(Braune, Eadie). Ellicott co-ordinates the two ideas. Alford interprets it as en- 
mity to God. Calovius and Harless regard “hatred” as standing for ‘‘ cause of 
hatred,” pointing to the ceremonial law in the tov véuov tv évtoAdv. See Eadie 
for examples from the classics (Tacitus V. 4, 5; Horace, Satires, I. ibe, 70) 
Juvenal), illustrating the hatred of Gentiles to Jews ; also ‘Judaism at Rome’’ 
by Huidekoper, § 3, New York, 1880. 


XXYV. Ver. 15. iva trove dvé Krion «.T.A. 


Martensen makes a striking application of this passage to the relation of the 
individual to the Church (Chr. Ethics, I. 213): ‘‘ They” (i.e., Christians) ‘‘ are 
all one, because only in their totality are they the new man. That is to say, 
that the new man is not perfectly realized in any single one of them, and with- 
out unity each of them is merely a fragment, reflecting only a single ray of 
Christ’s image ; for only the entire church can mirror Christ’s kingdom,” 


XXVI. Ver. 19. mdpockor. 


The Greek metic was ‘‘at Athens a resident alien who paid a certain tax 
but enjoyed no civic rights’ (Liddell and Scott). He was intermediate between 
the févoc and the doréc. In Sophocles, Antigone, 852, it is applied to one whose 
home is neither among the living nor the dead. The best illustration of the 
condition of metics will be found in the oration of Lysias (who was himself a 
metic) against Eratosthenes. Cf. Grote’s History of Greece, chapter Ixv. 
Cremer defines the N. T. rapo.koc, ‘‘one who dwells in a place without the 
rights of a home.” 


26 


402 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


XXVII. Ver. 20. ém) ro Geperio. 


Schmidt in the revised Meyer dissents, as also do Braune, Alford, and 
Ellicott. The dative denotes a more absolute and more closely fitting relation, 
and its use instead of the genitive is not accidental. 


XXVIII. Ver. 20. rév amocréAwv Kai mpodytav. 


To these arguments, Eadie adds the following : ‘‘In writing to persons who 
had been Gentiles, whose faith in Christ rested not in old predictions realized 
in Him, but on apostolic proclamation of His obedience and death—a reference 
to the seers of the Hebrew nation would not have been very intelligible and 
appropriate. To Jews with whom the apostle had ‘reasoned out of the Script- 
ure,’ and whom he had thus convinced that Jesus was the Christ, the refer- 
ence would have been natural and stirring ; but not so in an address to the 
Gentile portion of the church, situated in the city of Diana.” 


CHAP. III. 403 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 3. éyvwpichn] Elz. Matth. Reiche have éyvdpice, in opposition to decisive 
testimony. A more precisely defining gloss. — Ver. 5. Before érépacc Elz. has, 
likewise against decisive testimony, év, which was attached on account of the 
double dative. — Ver. 6. airov] after érayy. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon 
preponderating evidence, to be deleted. — Ver. 7. éyevounv] Lachm. Tisch. 
[Treg.] Riick. [West. and Hort] read éyevy$nv, after AB D* F G 8. With this 
preponderant attestation the more to be preferred, in proportion to the ease 
with which the more current form might involuntarily creep in. — 77)v dofeicar | 
Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Riick.: rij¢ dofeionc, approved also 
by Griesb. Attested, it is true, by A BC D* FG 8, min. Copt. Vulg. It. Latin 
Fathers ; but how readily would the genitive present itself to the mechanical 
copyist after ver, 2! comp. ver. 8. — Ver. 8. év roic.] A BC 8, min. Copt. have 
merely toic. So Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Rickert. Strongly 
enough attested ; specially as the parallel in subject-matter, Gal. i. 16, offered 
év as an addition. — The neuter 76 tAovroc is also here and at ver. 16 prepon- 
derantly attested. — Ver. 9. tavrac] suspected by Beza, placed within brackets 
by Lachm. But it is wanting only in A 8, two min. Cyr. Hilar. Jer. Aug. The 
omission, at any rate too feebly attested, may have been accidental, or even 
after év toic¢ veo intentional. — otxovoyia] Elz. has ko.vwvia, in opposition to 
almost all the witnesses. An interpretation. — After «ricavr: Elz. has dca "Ijaov 
Xpiorod, which is defended, it is true, by Rinck (in whose view Marcion had 
deleted it) and by Reiche (who holds it to have been omitted by the orthodow), 
but is condemned by the decisive counter-testimony as an exegetico-dogmatic 
addition. — Ver. 12. rv mappyoiav kK. THY Tpocaywynv] The second r7v is wanting 
in A B 8* 17, 80, Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] Riick.; but its super- 
fluousness occasioned the omission. F G have r7v rpocaywyny ei¢ THY Tappyciar, 
a change produced by the absolute tv mpocay. — Ver. 14. tod xvpiov juav ’ Iycov 
X. is wanting in ABC §8 17, 67** Copt. Aeth. Erp. Vulg. ms. and important 
Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Riick. Harless. An addition to rarépa 
readily offering itself, although defended by Reiche (on insufficient internal 
grounds). — Ver. 16. 6¢7] ABC FG 8, 37, 39, 116, and several Fathers have 
6g. So Lachm, [West. and Hort] and Riick. With this important attestation 
dw is here the more to be preferred, as diy offered itself to the copyists from i. 
17. — Ver. 18. Bafoc x. toc] Lachm. [West. and Hort] reads toc x. Bafoc, on 
considerable but not decisive evidence. But the sequence of thought, ‘‘ height 
and depth,” was more familiar. Comp. Rom. viii. 39.— Ver. 21. év ri éxxAnoia 
év Xpiotw ‘Incov] So D*¥* K L, min. Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. and other Greeks. 
But ABC §& 73, 80, 213, Copt. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. Jer. Pel. have éy rt. éxxd. 
kai év X. ’I. (so Lachm. [West. and Hort] and Riick.). D* F G, It. Ambrosiast. 
have év X. "I. cai tH éxxA. Only 46 and Oros. have év X. ’I. merely, without év ri 
éxkA., evidence which is far too weak to justify suspicion of év r7 éxxA. (in oppo- 


404 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


sition to Koppe and Riick.). The xa/, although strongly attested, is an old un- 
suitable connective addition ; and the placing of év r. éxxd. after év X.’I isa 
transposition in accordance with the sense of rank, Hence, with Tisch. and 
Reiche, the Recepta is to be upheld. 


ConreNtTs.—On this account am I, Paul, the prisoner of God for the sake 
of you, the Gentiles (ver. 1). Effusion over the nature of his office as apos- 
tle of the Gentiles (vv. 2-12), which concludes with the entreaty to the 
readers not to become discouraged at the sufferings which he is enduring 
on their behalf (ver. 13). On this account he beseeches God that they 
might be inwardly strengthened in the Christian character, in order that 
they may know the whole greatness of the love of Christ, and thereby be- 
come filled with all divine gifts of grace (vv. 14-19). Doxology, vv. 20, 21. 

Ver. 1. On this account, namely, in order that ye may be built unto the 
dwelling of God by means of the Spirit (ii. 22),—on this behalf, that your 
Christian development may advance towards that goal, am I, Paul, the fet- 
tered one of Christ Jesus for the sake of you, the Gentiles. The position of 
Paul in fetters on account of his labors as the apostle of the Gentiles * could 
only exert a beneficial influence upon the development of the Christian life 
of his churches, as edifying and elevating for them (comp. ver. 13), as, on 
the other hand, it must have redounded as a scandal to them, if he had 
withdrawn from the persecutions (Gal. vi. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff.; Phil. i. 17 
f.). Hence the rotrov yap emphatically prefixed. —éya IavAoc] in the con- 
sciousness of his personal authority (comp. 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. v. 2 ; 1 Thess. 
ii. 18; Col. i. 23 ; Philem. 9), which the bonds could not weaken, but 
only exalt (2 Cor. xi. 23 ff). — 6 déopuog rov I. X.] The article denotes the 
bound one of Christ kav’ é¢oyfv, ‘* pre-eminently,” such as Paul could not 
but, in accordance with his special relation to Christ (Gal. i. 1, vi. 17), ap- 
pear to himself and others. The genitive expresses the author of the being 
bound. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 8; Philem. 9. See Winer, p. 170. Paul regards 
himself, in keeping with the consciousness of his entire dependence on Christ 
(as dovdoc Xpicrov), as the one whom Christ has put in chains.—As regards the 
construction, by many the simple eivi isrightly supplied after 6 déopto¢g tov Xp. 
I.,? so that 6 déoucoc tow X. ’1. is predicate, in connection with which some 
have neglected the article, others have rightly had regard to it.* He is, 
however, the déoycoc of Christ on behalf of the Gentiles ; and this thought 
leads him in the sequel to explain himself more fully regarding his vocation 
as apostle of the Gentiles, whereupon he only briefly returns to the point 
of his imprisonment in ver. 13, after having been led away from it by the 
detailed exposition of the theme, to which he had been incited by the ixép 
tov ?vov. Free movement of thought natural in a letter. Supplementary 
additions, such as legatione fungor, ‘‘am discharging the duties of the em- 


1“ Quia gentes Judaeis adaequabat, incidit 2 Syriac, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Eras- 
in suorum popularium odium,”’ ‘* Because mus, Cajetanus, Beza, Elsner, Calovius, 
he made the Gentiles equal to the Jews, he Wolf, Michaelis, Paraphr. ; Morus, Koppe, 
incurred the popular hatred of his own Rosenmiiller [Schenkel], and others. 
nation,’ Drusius. Comp. Grotius, Calovius. 3 See especially Beza. 


CHAP. III., 2. 405 
bassay,”? or hoe scribo, ‘‘am writing this” (Camerarius, and the like),* are 
not implied in the context, and are therefore erroneous. Others have re- 
garded the discourse as broken off, and have found the resumption either at 
ver. 8,? or at ver. 13,‘ or at ver. 14,° or only at iv. 1.° But all these hypoth- 
eses are—inasmuch as, according to the above explanation, ver. 1 in it- 
self yields with ease and linguistic correctness a complete and suitable sense 
—unnecessary complications of the discourse. Baumgarten-Crusius regards 
the discourse as entirely broken off under the pressure of the crowding 
thoughts, so that it is not at all resumed in the sequel.—After ver. 1 only 
a comma is to be placed. 

Ver. 2. Confirmation of that which has just been said, izip budav tov evar, 
by the recalling of what the readers have heard concerning his vocation. 
‘* For you, the Gentiles,” I say, upon the presupposition that, etc. This presup- 
position he expresses by ¢iye, i.¢., tum certe si, ‘‘ then certainly if,” ’ it being 
implied in the connection (for of his church he could not presuppose anything 
else), not in the word itself, that he assumes this rightly. He might have 
written cizep, if at all, provided that, or cizep ye, provided namely,* but he has 
conceived the presupposition under the form at least if, if namely, and so 
denotes it? Comp. on Gal. iii. 4 and 2 Cor. v. 3 ; wherever eiye is used and 
the assumption is a certain one (as also at iv. 21), the latter is to be gath- 
ered from the connection. From whom the readers had heard the matter in 
question, their own consciousness told them, namely, from Paul himself and 
other Pauline teachers, so that eiye yxobcare x.7.A. isa reminder of his preach- 
ing among them. Hence our passage is wrongly regarded as at variance with 
the superscription pic ’Egeciovc, and as pointing to readers to whom Paul was 
not personally known ; while others, as Grotius,’ have, without any ground in 
the context, assigned to the simple dxote the signification bene intelligere, 
“‘ understand well ;” Calvin, on the other hand, had recourse to the altogeth- 
er unnatural hypothesis : ‘‘ Credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, ewm taewisse de 
his rebus,” ‘It is credible that when he was engaged at Ephesus he was silent 
concerning these matters ;” and Béttger ”’ refers it to the hearing of this Hpis- 
tle read, against which the very dvaywécxovrec that follows in ver. 3 is deci- 
sive. Estius very correctly states that ciye is not ‘‘ dubitantis, sed potius affir- 
mantis ; neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii, guibus P. 
ipse evang. plusquam biennio praedicaverat, ‘‘of one doubting, but rather of 
one affirming ; for the Ephesians could not have been ignorant to whom Paul 

1 Ambrosiaster, 


Castalio, Calvin, Vata- Matthies, Harless, Olshausen, Bisping, 


blus. 

2 Already in early witnesses supplement- 
ary additions are met with in the text: 
mpeoBevw in D* EF 10, followed by Castalio 
and Calvin ; postulo in Clar., Germ. ; xexav- 
xnuac in 71, 219, a. 

3 Oecumenius, Grotius. 

4 Zanchius, Cramer, Holzhausen. 

® Theodoret, Luther, Piscator, Calixtus, 
Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Homberg, 
Schéttgen, Bengel Baumgarten, and others, 
including Flatt, Lachmann,Rickert, Winer, 


Bleek ; de Wette, characterizing this con- 
struction as ‘‘ hardly Pauline.” 

6 Erasmus Schmid, Hammond, Michaelis 
in note to his translation. 

7 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 308. 

8 Xen. Mem. i. 4. 4, Ana. i. 7.9; often in 
the tragedians. 

®So also Rinck, Sendschr. der Korinth. 
p. 56, who, however, takes the correct view 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 954. 

10 Beitr. ili. p. 46 ff. 


406 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

himself had preached the Gospel for more than two years.” * Paul might have 
expressed himself in the form of an assertion (7jkovoate ydp, OY éret pKoboare), 
but the hypothetic form of expression constitutes a more delicate and sug- 
gestive way of recalling his preaching among them,” without, however, con- 
taining an obliquam reprehensionem, *‘ indirect reproof,” * of which the context 
affords no trace.—r7v oikovopiay THE yapitoc K.T.A.|] the arrangement (see on i. 
10) which has been made regarding the grace of God given to me with reference 
to you (zhe yaprrog is the objective genitive). The more precise explanation 
is then given by érz cata aroxdAvpw x.7.2. The ydpic is here, in accordance 
with the context (ri¢ do. jor eic buac), the divine bestowal of grace that took 
place in the entrusting him with the apostolic office. Comp. on Rom. xii. 3, 
xv. 15. Others, like Pelagius, Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Rosen- 
miiller, et al., have explained oixov. rt. yap. as the office of administering 
evangelic grace; but against this it may be urged that not ric dofeionc, but 
thv dofeicav, must have been afterwards used. This mistake is avoided by 
Wieseler, p. 446 f., where he takes it as: the office for which I have been 
qualified by the grace conferred upon me on your behalf. This office the 
readers had heard, inasmuch as they had heard the preaching of the apostle. 
But how are we to justify the expression ‘‘to hear the office,” instead of 
‘‘to hear the official preaching”? The words would merely say : if ye have 
heard of the office, etc., Gal. i. 18 ; Col. i. 4; Philem. 5. 

Ver. 3. In this more detailed specification of the oikovouia meant in ver. 
2, Kata aroxadvw has the emphasis: by way of revelation, expressing the 
mode of the making known, in accordance with a well-known adverbial 
usage.* In substance the dv aroxadinvewe of Gal. i. 12 is not different. Ac- 
cording to the history of the conversion in Acts xxvi. (not according to 
Acts ix. and xxii.), we have here to think not merely of the disclosures 
that followed the event near Damascus (as Gal. i. 12), but also of the reve- 
lation connected with this event itself ; for the contents of what is revealed 
is here the blessing of the Gentiles, and with this comp. Acts xxvi. 17, 18, 
as also Gal. i. 16 ; hence from xara aroxd2. we may not infer a post-apostolic 
time of composition.® — éyvwpicby| namely, on the part of God ; comp. vv. 
2, 5. —70 pvorhpiov] see on 1. 9 ; it applies here, however, not to the counsel 
of redemption in general, but to the inclusion of the Gentiles init. It is 
_ not until ver. 6 that the apostle comes to express this special contents which 
is here meant. — kaféc down to the end of ver. 4, is not to be treated as a pa- 
renthesis, inasmuch as 6, ver. 5, attaches itself to the év 76 wvor. tr. X. im- 
mediately preceding. —xafoc mpoéypara év ddiyw] as I before wrote in brief, 





1De Wette dogmatically lays it down 
that the readers had no need, if the apostle 
had already exercised his apostolic calling 
among them, now first to learn from him- 
self that he had received it. But in so 
speaking he has not attended to the fact 
that the object of the nxovcate is not the re- 
ception of the apostolic vocation in general, 
but the mode of this reception (namely, 
kata amokaduwiy, ver. 3), This account of 


the manner in which he had become their 
apostle he communicated to them when he 
was with them, and of ‘hishe reminds them 
now. 

2 As also the Attic writers, in place of 
ézet ye, delicately use the hypothetic eiye ; 
see Kiihner, ad@ Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1. 

3 Vitringa, comp. Holzhausen. 

4 Bernhardy, p. 241. 

5 Schwegler. 


CHAP. III., 4. 407 
refers not to xara aroxdAvyv, but to éyvap. wot Td wvoThp., aS is shown by ver. 
4, where Paul characterizes that which was before written as evidence of 
his knowledge of the mystery, but not as evidence of the revelation by which 
he has attained to this knowledge. Groundlessly, and at variance with the 
subsequent present avayvécxovrec, Calvin, Hunnius, and others have? re- 
ferred rpoéyp. to an epistle which has now been lost, in support of which view 
the passage in Ignatius éy doy éxictoAq? has been made use of.* It applies 
(not toi. 9, 10, as many would have it, but), as is proved by the here meant 
special contents of the pvorgpiov (ver. 6), to the section last treated 
of, concerning the Gentiles attaining unto the Messianic economy of salva- 
tion, ii. 11-22.4—év ddiyo] did Bpayéwv, ‘‘in short,” Chrysostom: év is 
instrumental.? See Acts xxvi. 28.° The same is expressed by ovrtéuwe, 
Acts xxiv. 4, summarily. Wetstein well puts it: ‘‘ pauca tantum attigi, 
cum multa dici possent,” ‘‘T have touched upon only a few things, although 
many could be said.” Following Theodoret, Beza (with hesitation), Calvin, 
Grotius, Estius, Erasmus Schmid, Koppe, and others have taken it as a 
more precise definition of the rpé : paulo ante, ‘shortly before.” But ina 
temporal sense év ddiyw means nothing else than in a short time (see on Acts 
Xxvi. 28; Comp. Plat. Apol. p. 22 B ; Dem. xxxiii. 18 ; Pind. Pyth. viii. 
131 : év 0 ddiyw Bpotéy 76 Teprvdy absera, ‘the delight of mortals will in- 
crease),” which is not suitable here ; xpd oAiyov must have been used (Acts 
v. 36, xxi. 38; 2 Cor. xii. 2, al. ; Plat. Symp. 147 E, al.)." 

Ver. 4. In accordance with which ye, while ye read it, are able to discern, 
etc.*° — rpoc 6 applies to that which Paul rpoéypaye, and xpédc¢ indicates the 
standard of the judging; in accordance with which.’ The inference : ov« 
éypawev boa éypyv, aAW boa éyOpovv voeiv, ‘‘ He wrote not as much as was 
necessary, but as much as they were capable of understanding,” ” finds no 
justification at all in what Paul has previously written. — dvaywéckorrec] not 
attendentes, ‘‘ attending,” *' but, as always in the N. T., legentes, ‘‘reading.” 
— THY obveciv ov év TH pvaTnpiw Tov X.| is to be taken together, and before év 
it was not needful to repeat the article, because ovwévar év (to have under- 
standing in a matter) was a very current expression (2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; 
Josh. i. 7; Dan. i. 17). Comp. 3 Esdr. i. 33: tHe ovvécewe avrov év TO vou 


kupiov. The genitive rov Xpiorov is ordinarily taken as genitivas objecti, ‘‘ an 


1 Although it was already rejected by 
Theodoret. 

2 See Introd. § 1. 

3 See Fabric. Cod. Apoc. I. p. 916. 

4 Comp. already Oecumenius. 

5 Yet it may also be conceived of locally, 
as Thue. iv. 26. 2; 96. 2 (see Kriiger): in 
small space, in a concise passage. 

®§ Comp. the classical 6v dAtywv, Plat. Phil. 
p. 31 D, Legg. vi. p. 778 C, é€v Bpaxet and év 
Bpaxéor (Dem. 592, 8). 

7 Comp. oAtyov te mpétepov, Herod. iv. 81. 

§ Wiggers (Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 438) re- 
gards as subject the Ephesians, not as 
such, but as representatives of the Gentile 
world : “ve Gentiles.” Arbitrarily imported, 


and entirely unnecessary. Doubtless the 
ovveots Of the Ap. ev TO pvoTHpiw ToD X. must 
have been entirely beyond doubt for the 
readers in consequence of their personal 
connection with him; but thereby his 
appeal to what he has just written does not 
become inappropriate, but only the more 
forcible and effective. There lies a cer- 
tain pelwors in this reference to that which 
he has just written. 

*See Bernhardy, p. 205; Ellendt, Lew. 
Soph. 11. p. 652; Winer, p. 361. 

10 Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom ; Ben- 
gel compares ex ungue leonem, ““you may 
know the lion from its claw.” 

11 Calvin. 


408 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


objective genitive :” the mystery which has reference to Christ. But, even 
apart from Col. i. 27, the whole subsequent detailed statement as far as ver. 
12 suggests the contextually more exact view, according to which Paul 
means the pvorfpiov contained in Christ. Christ Himself, His person and 
His whole work, especially His redeeming death, connecting also the Gen- 
tiles with the people of God (ver. 6), is the coneretum of the Divine mys- 
tery. — The assailants of the genuineness of the Epistle find ver. 4 incom- 
patible with the apostolic dignity,’ nay, even ‘‘self-complacent and courting 
favor.” ? But here precisely the point brought into prominence, that the 
mystery had become known to him xara aroxddviw, justifies the stress laid 
upon his civeow in the mystery, so far as he has already manifested the 
same in his Epistle. The apostle might have appealed in proof of this 
sivecic to his working, but he might also—especially taking into account 
the change which had meanwhile occurred in the personal composition of the 
church—adduce for this purpose his writing, in doing which his very 
apostolic dignity raised him above considerations of the semblance of self- 
complacency and the like. Hardly would another, who had merely as- 
sumed the name of the apostle Paul, have put into his mouth such a self- 
display of his cvvectc—which, in order not to fall out of his assumed apos- 
tolic part, he would rather have avoided. — As to cbveaic, see on Col. i. 9. 
Ver. 5. Not an explanation, to what extent he was speaking of amystery :* 
for that the readers knew, and the design of bringing in a mere explanation 
would not be in keeping with the elevated solemn style of the whole verse ; 
but a triumphant outburst of the conscious exalted happiness of belonging 
to the number of those who had received the revelation of the mystery—an 
outburst, which was very naturally called forth by the sublime contents of 
the pvoripiov. — étépase yeveaic| may be either a definition of time, like the dative 
at ii. 12 (so taken wswally) ; in that case yeveaic is not periodis or temporibus, 
‘« periods” or ‘‘ times,” in general, but: in other generations (comp. on ver. 21) ; 
or it may express the simple dative relation, so that yeveaic is generationibus :* 
which to other generations was not made known, according to which toic vioig Tév 
avép. would form a characteristic epexegesis.° This was my previous view. Yet 
the former explanation, as being likewise linguistically correct, and withal 
more simple and more immediately in keeping with the contrast viv, is to be 
preferred. The érepacyev. are the generations which have preceded the viv; and 
Toi¢ violg Tov avOp. (not elsewhere occurring with Paul) has the significance, 
that it characterizes men according to their lower sphere conditioned by their 
‘Cortum naturalem,” ‘‘ natural origin,” ° under which they were incapable 
in themselves of understanding the pvorfpiov. Comp. Gen. xi. 5; Ps. viii. 
5, x1. 5 ; Wisd. ix. 6. That specially the O. T. prophets are meant by roic¢ 
vioi¢ Tov avOpor., as Bengel supposed,’ is wrongly inferred from roz¢ ayiorg 





1 de Wette. 307. 

2 Schwegler. ® Bengel. 

® Riickert, Meier. 7 In quite an opposite way Jerome would 
4 Vulgate. exclude the ancient patriarchs and prophets 


5 Lobeck, ad Aj. 808; Bernhardy, p. 55; from the viots trav avép.; for these were 
Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, pp. 272, rather sons of God! 


CHAP; IIL:, d. 409 


amooréaoe K.T.A., since the contrast does not lie in the persons,’ but in the 
time (étépaic yeveaic . . . viv). It is true Ezekiel often bears the name 
DIX-}3, ‘Son of man” (vii. 1, xii. 1, a/.), not, however, as prophet, but as 
san ; and thereby likewise his human lowliness and dependence upon God 
are brought home to him. — dc] By this expression, which (in opposition to 
Bleek) is to be left as comparative, the disclosure made to Abraham and the 
ancient prophets of the future participation of the Gentiles in Messiah’s 
kingdom (Gal. iii. 8 ; Rom. ix. 24-26, xv. 9 ff.) remains undisputed ; for 
‘‘fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum, ‘‘ to 
them this mystery was as it were far off, and displayed under covering,” 
Beza ; hence the prophetic prediction served only as means for the making 
known of the later complete revelation of the mystery (Rom. xvi. 26). — 
voy] in the Christian period. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 12. — amexario6n] not a repe- 
tition of éyvepichy, but the distinguishing mode in which this manifestation 
took place, is intended to be expressed : xara aroxddvyuw éyvopicty, ver. 38. 
— Ttoi¢ dylow aroor. k.t.A.] is not to be divided by a comma after dyioc,? so 
that aroor. aiz. x. zpod. would be apposition or more precise definition, 
whereby the flow of the expression would be only needlessly interrupted. 
The predicate holy was already borne by the Old Testament prophets 
(2 Kings iv. 9; Luke i. 70; 2 Pet. i. 21), and this appellation at our passage 
by no means exposes the apostolic origin of the Epistle to suspicion ;? but 
it is very naturally called forth by the context, in order to distinguish the 
recipients of the revelation amidst the mass of the viol tov avOpdzwr, in ac- 
cordance with the connection, as God’s special messengers and instruments, 
as Gytot Oeov avOpuro (2 Pet. i. 21) ; whereupon the apostolic consciousness 
in Paul was great and decided enough not to suppress the predicate sug- 
gested by the connection,* while he is speaking of the apostles and prophets 
in general, whereas, immediately afterwards, at ver. 8, in speaking of him- 
selfin particular, he gives full play to his individual deep humility. How 
can we conceive that the author should thus in one breath have fallen owt 
of his assumed part at ver. 5 with roic¢ dyiow, by a ‘‘slip,”* and then have 
resumed it at ver. 8 with éuol 76 éAayiorotépw 1—avrov| not of Christ,® but of 
God, whose action is implied in éyvwpicy and arexadioOn. — Kai rpodhrace | 
quite as at ii. 20 — éy zvetyatc] The Holy Spirit is the divine principle, 
through which the arexatigy took place. Comp. i. 17; 1 Cor. ii. 10 ff. 
Riickert wrongly takes it as : in an inspired state, which rvevua never Means, 
but, on the contrary, even without the article is the objective Holy Spirit. 
Comp. on ii. 22. Koppe and Holzhausen connect év rvebuare (sc. odor) with 
mpodfrac. In this way it would be an exceedingly superfluous addition, 
since prophets, who should not be év rv., are inconceivable, whereas a rev- 





1The dmootoAo. and mpodHrat were also 4A side-glance at the Jews, who would 
viot Tay avOp., but a sacred éxdAoyy, “ selec- have seen a blasphemy in the apostolic 
tion,” of the same. message of the joint-heirship of the Gen- 
2 Lachmann, Bisping. tiles (Lange, Apostol. Zettalt. I. p. 128), is 
3 de Wette derives ay.ors from the passage utterly remote from the connection. 
Col. i. 26 recast in post-apostolic times; 5 Baur. 
Baur: from the post-apostolic reverential 6 Bleek. 


looking back to the apostles. 


410 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

elation was conceivable even otherwise than through the Spirit (by means 
of theophany, angel, vision, ecstasy, etc.). Meier connects év mv. even 
with dyiow, so that the sense would be : zn sacred enthusiasm! and Ambro- 
siaster! with the following eva: «.r.A. Baur, p. 440, knows how to explain 
év rvepuate from a Montanistic view, and thinks that it is only on account 
of the prophets that it is applied to the apostles also. 

Ver. 6. Hpexegetical infinitive, more precisely specifying the contents of 
the pvaripiov : that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, ete. This eiva (which is 
not to be changed into should be) is objectively contained in the redeeming 
work of Christ, and the subjective appropriation takes place by the conver- 
sion of the individuals. —ocvykAnpovdua] denotes the joint possession (with 
the believing Jews) of eternal Messianic bliss,—a possession now indeed 
still ideal (Rom. viii. 24), but to be really accomplished at the setting up 
of the kingdom. See oni. 11,14, v. 5; Acts xx. 32; Rom. viii. 17; Gal. 
iii. 28.—ctocwua kat ovupétoya x.t.A.] That which is already sufficiently 
designated by ovyxAnp. is yet again twice expressed, once figuratively and 
the next time literally ;? in which no climax is to be found,’ but the great 
importance of the matter has led the apostle, deeply impressed by it, to ac- 
cumulated description.* ctocwua denotes belonging jointly to the body (i.e., as 
members to the Messianic community, whose head is Christ, i. 23, ii. 16). 
The word does not occur elsewhere, except in the Fathers,° and was per- 
haps formed by Paul himself. Comp. however, cvccwuatoroeiv, Arist. de 
mundo, iv. 30. cvupétoyoc, too, occurs only here and v. 7, and besides, in 
Josephus, Bell. i. 24. 6, and the Fathers.° The érayyedia is the promise of 
the Messianic blessedness, which God has given in the O. T., comp. ii. 12. 
He, however, who has joint share in the promise is he to whom it jointly relates, 
in order to be jointly realized in his case ; hence 7 érayyedia is not to be 
interpreted as res promissa, ‘‘a promised matter,” which several’ have re- 
ferred to the Holy Spirit (Gal. iii. 14; Heb. vi. 4; Acts ii. 39), but at 
variance with the context (cvyxdnp.). The thrice occurring ov has the 
mpotov of the Jews (Acts iii. 26 ; Rom. i. 16) as its presupposition.* — év 76 
Xpior] dependent on eivaz, applies to all three elements, as does also the 
following da tov evayy. In Christ, as the Reconciler, the cvyxAnpovouia k.T.A. 
of the Gentiles is objectively founded ; and through the gospel, which is 
proclaimed to them, the subjective appropriation in the way of faith is 
brought about. The annexing, with Vatablus, Koppe, and Holzhausen, év 
TG Xpor@ to tHe éxayy., is not to be approved, just because the reader, as he 
needed no more precise definition in connection with cvykAyp. and cbocapa, 


1 Comp. Erasmus. 

2 Harless thinks, the one time after the an- 
alogy of persons, and the other time after the 
analogy of things. But as well in cvoowpa as 
in over. the relation of persons and of 
things is combined. 

3 Jerome, Pelagius, Zanchius, Schenkel. 

4On the accumulation of synonymous ex- 
pressions in earnest emotional discourse, 
comp. Diintzer, Aristarch. p. 41. 


5 See Suicer, 7hes. IT. p. 1191. 

® Comp. cuppetéxw, 2 Mace. v. 20; Xen. 
Anab. vii. 8.17; Plat. Theaet. p. 181 C. 

7Menochius, Grotius, Bengel; comp. 
Estius. 

® But the thought that the substantial 
contents of the gospel are identical with 
Judaism (Baur, Neutest. Theol. p. 276) is in- 
correctly imported. See,in opposition to 
it, especially ii. 15. 


CHAMPA tones All 


understood also of himself what éxayyedia was meant, and the absolute ric 
érayy. (see the critical remarks) is more emphatic. 

Ver. 7. Ardéxovoc] Comp. Col. i. 23; 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; also Luke i. 2. Paul 
became a servant of the gospel when he was enjoined by God through Christ 
(Gal. i. 1, 15 ff. ; Acts ix. 22, 26) to devote his activity to the proclamation 
of the gospel. The distinction from imnpérne (used by Paul only at 1 Cor. iv. 
1) is not, as Harless supposes, that dvdxovoc denotes the servant in his activ- 
ity for the service, while irnpérn¢ denotes him in his activity for the Master 
(see, in opposition to this, 1 Cor. xil. 3 ; Rom. xiii. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 3 ; Col. i. 
7, iv. 6) ; but both words indicate without distinction of reference the relation 
of service, and the difference lies only in this, that the two designations, in 
accordance with their etymology, are originally borrowed from different con- 
crete relations of service (dvax., runner ; inp, rower ; see the Lexicons, and 
on didxovoc, Buttm. Levil. I. p. 218 ff.) ; in the usage, however, of the N. T., 
both words have retained merely the general notion of servant, as very fre- 
quently also with Greek writers. [See Note XXIX., p. 431.] In opposition 
to Harless it may be also urged that not only is the expression dsaxoveiv Twi 
te used, but also in like manner tryperetv twi te... The gift, which was con- 
ferred upon Paul by the divine grace, and in consequence of which he became 
a servant of the gospel, is, agreeably to the context, the apostolic office (comp. 
vv. 2, 8), not the donwm linguarum, ‘‘ gift of tongues,” * nor yet the gift of 
the Holy Spirit.* — xara tiv évépy. tr. duu. adtod] belongs to riv dobeicdy por. 
To the efficacious action of the power of God (comp. ver. 20, and on i. 19) the 
bestowal of the gift of grace leads back the mind of the apostle, in the con- 
sciousness of what he had been before, Gal. i. 13 ff. ‘‘Haec est potentiae 
ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid efficere,” ‘‘ This is the efficacy of his 
power, viz., to make out of nothing something grand,” Calvin. By the be- 
stowal, in fact, of that gift of the divine grace Saul had become changed 
into Paul ; hence xara rv évipy. tr. Suv. adrod. 

Ver. 8. The apostle now explains himself more fully on what had been said 
in ver. 7, and that entirely from the standpoint of the humility, with which, 
in the deep feeling of his personal unworthiness, he looked forth upon the 
greatness and glory of his vocation. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9. — After ver. 7a 

‘full stop is to be placed, and roi¢ @veow ebayy. is the explanation of the 
xapic ain. Harless regards éuoi . . . airy asa parenthetic excalamation, 
like ii. 6, and rote 2v. evayy. as a more precise definition of what is meant 
by depea. He finds it contrary to nature to meet in the long intercalation 
(vv. 2-13) a halting-point, and yet not a return to the main subject. But in 
opposition to the whole view of such an intercalation, see on ver. 1. And 
hardly could it occur to areader not to connect ehayyeA/cacha with the imme- 
diately preceding 7 ydpic airy, specially when 7 éAayororépw x.7.2. points to 
the contrast of the greatness of the vocation, which very greatness is de- 
picted, and in how truly grand a style ! from roic @veorw forward. — On the 
forms of degree constructed from the superlative (or even the comparative, 


1 Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 46, Cyr. i. 6. 39; Soph. 2 Grotius. 
Phil, 1012. ° Flatt, after older expositors. 


412 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

as 8 John 4), sce Sturz, ad Maitt. p. 44; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 185 f. ; 
Winer, p. 65. In the analysis the comparative sense it to be maintained (the 
least, lesser than all).—The expression of humility ravrtwr ayior,' t.€., than all 
Christians, is even far stronger than 1 Cor. xv. 9. 
‘He did not say than the apostles,” Chrysostom. What was the ground of 
this self-abasement (which, indeed, Baur, p. 447, enumerates among the 
‘heightening imitations”) the reader knew, without the necessity for Paul 
writing it to him,—namely, not the consciousness of sin in general,’ in 
which respect Paul knew that he stood on the same level with any other 
(Rom. iii. 22, xi. 82 ; Gal. iii. 22), as with every believer upon an equal footing _ 
of redemption by the death of Christ (Gal. iii. 13, 14 ; Rom. vii. 25, vill. 2), 
but the deeply humbling consciousness of having persecuted Christ, which, inex- 
tinguishable in him, so often accompanied his recalling of the grace of 
the apostolic office vouchsafed to him (1 Cor. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6 ; 
comp. 1 Tim. i. 18). —roic &veoww] Paul was apostle of the Gentiles. —76 
aveeiyv. TAovTOC Tov Xpiotov| By this is meant the whole divine fulness of salva- 
tion, of which Christ is the possessor and bestower, and which is of such a 
nature that the human intellect cannot explore it soas to form an adequate 
conception of it. This does not hinder the proclamation, which, on the ~ 
contrary, is rendered possible by revelation, but imposes on the knowledge 
(1 Cor. xiii. 9-12) as on the proclamation their limits. As to avegcyv., see on 
Rom. xi. 33. 

Ver. 9. Kai ¢wrica révrac] According to Harless, who is followed by 
Olshausen [Hofmann and Braune], Paul makes a transition to all men: 
‘‘not, however, to the Gentiles alone, but to all.” Wrongly, since Paul must 
have written kai ravtac dwrica, as he had before prefixed roi¢ éveow. mdvrag 
applies to all Gentiles, and the progress of the discourse has regard not to 
the persons, but to a particular main point (xe/, and in particular), upon 
which Paul in his proclamation of the riches of Christ gives information to 
all Gentiles. — gwricar] collustrare, ‘‘to lighten,” of the enlightenment of the 
mind (John i. 9), which is here to be conceived of as brought about by 
means of the preaching. Comp. Heb. vi. 4,° x. 32; Ps. exix. 130; Ecclus. 
xlv. 17. Docere, ‘‘ to teach,” * hits doubtless the real sense, but unwarrant- 
ably abandons the jigure. The possible difficulty that Christ Himself is in 
fact the light (John i. 9, xii. 35) disappears on considering that the apostles 
are mediately the enlightened ones (2 Cor. iv. 4; Matt. v. 14), the proclaim- 
ersand bearers (Acts xxvi. 18) of the divine light and its moral powers (v. 8). 
—tic¢ 7 otxovouia x.7.A.| t.€., what is the arrangement, which is made with regard 
to the mystery, etc. As to oixovoyuia, see oni. 10, iii. 2; the mystery is that 
indicated as to its contents in ver. 6 ; and what has been adjusted or ar- 
ranged with regard thereto (7 oixovouia tov uvornipov) consists in the fact that 


OvK eize TOv amoaTéAwr, 





1 The readings av3pH7wv in 4and Chrys., 
amoctoAwy in Archel., and ayiwy amroortoAwy 
in 46, are attempts at interpretation, of 
which avdpai7wyv was meant to guard against 
understanding the ayiwy of the angels; 
ayiwy is wanting only in Marcion and 72*, 


and Semler ought not to have looked upon 
it as spurious. 


2 Harless. 

3 And Bleek, ad loc. 

4Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and 
* others. 


CHAP. III., 9. 413 
this mystery, hidden in God from the very first, was to be made known in 
the present time through the church to the heavenly powers. See what fol- 
Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Col. i. 
26. — ard trav aidver| from the world-periods, since they have begun to run 
their course, from the very beginning. The mystery, namely, was decreed 
already xpd tov aidvwr, 1 Cor. ii. 7, comp. Eph. i. 4, but is conceived of as 
hidden only since the beginning of the ages, because there was no one pre- 
viously for whom it could be hidden. The same thing with a7 rév aiévor 
here is denoted at Rom. xvi. 25 by the popular expression ypdvore aiwviore, 
‘‘times eternal.” We may add that a76 rév aidvwr occurs in the N. T. only 
here and Col. i. 26 ; elsewhere is found the expression current also in Greek 
authors, a7’ aiavocg (Luke i. 70 ; Acts iii. 21), and é« rov aidvoc (John ix. 32). 
—T@ Ta Tavra KTicavts] guippe qui omnia’ creavit, ‘inasmuch as he created 
all things.” Herein lies—and this is the significant bearing of this more pre- 
cise designation of God—a confirmation of what has just been said, rod aroxe- 
Bengel aptly observes: ‘‘rerum omnium 
creatio fundamentum est omnis reliquae oeconomiae, pro potestate Dei uni- 
versali liberrime dispensatae,” ‘‘ The creation of all things is the foundation 
of all the rest of the economy unrestrictedly regulated according to the uni- 
versal power of God.” He who has created all that exists must already have 
had implicitly contained in His creative plan the great unfolding of the 
world, which forms the contents of this mystery, so that thus the latter was 
ard Tov aiévev hidden in God. Comp. on 6 roy taita yvword an’ aidvoc, 
Acts xv. 18, and as tothe idea which underlies our passage also, that already 
the creative word contemplated Christ as its aim,* Col. i. 16 ff., and the 
commentary thereon. Riickert thinks that Paul wishes to indicate how far 
it may not surprise us that He, from whom all things are derived, should 
have concealed a part of His all-embracing plan, in order to bring it to light 
only at the due time. But, apart from the fact that the creation of all 
things does not at all involve as a logical inference the concealment of a 
part of the divine plan, it was not the aroxexpuy. in itsclf that needed a 
ground assigned for it, since in fact this predicate is necessarily implied in 
the notion of pvorjpiov, but the aroxexp. dvd TOV aldvor. 


lows. — adroxexpuy.| ceorynuévov, Rom. xvi. 25. 


Kpun. amd TOV alov. év TE OE&Q. 


This a7xd rov 
aidvev is the terminus a quo, which was introduced with the kriow trav ravTor. 
At variance with the context, Olshausen holds that Paul wished to call at- 
tention to the fact that the establishment of redemption itself [of which the 
apostle in fact is not speaking] is a creative act of God, which could have 
proceeded only from Him who created all things. 
ravra kric. in connection with iva x.r.A., ver. 10. 


Harless places + ra 
But see on ver. 10. 


1 The totality of that which exists, the 
whole world. Every limitation of this wni- 
versal meaning is unwarranted, as when 
Beza, Piscator, Flatt, and others refer it 
to mankind. ‘‘Unus Deus omnes populos 
condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se yocat,”’ 
“As one God created all nations, so also 
does He now eall all to Himself,” Beza. 


Holzhausen, too, arbitrarily limits it to all 
spiritual beings, called to everlasting life ; 
while Matthies mixes up also in «tioav7e the 
effecting of the spiritual blessedness. 

2 Hence els “Incodv Xptotrov would have 
been amore correct gloss than 6a ’Incod 
Xp., which the fecepta has. 


414 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


RemarK.—When id "Inco Xpiorod is recognized as not genuine (see the 
critical remarks), the possibility is taken away of referring x«rioavt. to the 
moral creation by Christ, as is done by Calvin, Zanchius, Calixtus, Grotius, 
Crell, Locke, Semler, Morus, Koppe, Usteri, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
others. But even if those words were genuine, the formal and absolute xrigecv, 
as well as the emphatically prefixed and unlimited ra ravra, would justify only 
the reference to the physical creation, Gen. i. Comp. Calovius and Reiche. 


Ver. 10. “Iva] not ecbatic (Thomas Aquinas, Boyd, Zanchius, Estius, 
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen), introduces the design, not, 
however, of 76 ra mdvta Kricavtt, as, in addition to those who understand 
«ric. of the ethical creation, also Harless would take it.’ The latter sees in 
TO Ta TavTa KTicayTe iva K.7.A. an explanation ‘‘ how the plan of redemption 
had been from all ages hidden in God ; inasmuch as it was He who created 
the world, in order to reveal in the church of Christ the manifoldness of His 
wisdom.” But the very doctrine itself, that the design of God in the crea- 
tion of the world was directed to the making known of His wisdom fo the 
angels, and by means of the Christian church, has nowhere an analogy in the 
N. T. ; according to Col. i. 16, Christ (the personal Christ Himself) is the 
aim of the creation of all things, even of the angels, who are here included 
in ra ravta. But as yvwpioh evidently corresponds to the aroxexpvupévon, 
and viv to the ard rév aidver, we cannot, without arbitrary disturbance of 
the whole arrangement of this majestic passage, regard iva yvwpioby as other 
than the design of tov aroxexp. ard Tov aidver év TO Oecd. This statement of 
aim stands in exact significant relation to the vocation of the apostle, ver. 
8 f., through which this very making known to the heavenly powers was 
partly effected. The less is there reason for taking iva yvop. «.t.A., with de 
Wette (on ver. 11) and Hofmann? (who are followed by Schenkel), after 
earlier expositors, as defining the aim of the preaching of Paul, ver. 8f. ; in 
which case, besides, it would be offensive that Paul should ascribe specially 
to his work in preaching as its destined aim that, in which the other 
apostles withal (comp. in particular Acts xv. 7), and the many preachers to 
the Gentiles of that time (such as Barnabas), had a share. The joining on 
to the adjectival element azoxexp. x.r.2. produces no syntactical incongruity, 
but isas much in keeping with the carrying forward of the discourse by 
way of chain in our Epistle, as in accord with the reference of so significant 
a bearing to ver. 8 f. —yvupicbj viv] The emphasis is not upon viy,* but 
upon yropiof}, in keeping with the aroxexp. : in order that it should not 
remain hidden, but should be made known, etc. —rai¢ apyaic x. tT. éovotac] 
See oni. 21. The angelic powers are to recognize in the case of the Christian 
church the wisdom of God ;—what a church-glorifying design, out of 
which God kept the pvorjpiov from the beginning locked up in Himself ! 
To the heavenly powers (comp. 1 Pet. i. 12), which therefore are certainly 
not thought of as abstractions, the earthly institute is to show the wisdom of 


1§0 also Baur refers it, p. 425, but ex- 2 Schriftbew. I. p. 361. 
plains the thus resulting aim of the creation 3 Riickert and others. 
from the doctrine of the Valentinians. 


CHAP. III., 10. 415 
God ; an even, however, is quite arbitrarily inserted before raic apy.’ The 
explanation of the diabolic powers,? which Vorstius, Bengel, Olshausen, 
Hofmann, Bleek at least understand as included, is entirely foreign to the 
context (it is otherwise at vi. 12), even though év roi¢ érovpaviow (comp. 1.3, 
20), were not added. Throughout the whole connection the contrast of 
earth and heaven prevails. Wrongly, too, we may add, secular rulers,*® 
Jewish archons,* heathen priests,® and Christian church-overseers,® have been 
understood as here referred to (comp. i. 21); while Koppe would embrace 
“‘quicquid est vi, sapientia, dignitate insigne,” ‘‘ whatever is remarkable 
for force, wisdom, dignity,” and would only not exclude the angels on 
account of év roic éxovp. —-év roi¢ éxovp. 18, aS always in our Epistle (see oni. 8), 
definition of place: in heaven, not : in the case of the heavenly things, which are 
to be perceived in connection with the church’ and such like * [See above, 
Note IL, on ch. i. 3.] It is most naturally to be combined (comp. vi. 12) with 
Taic apy. kK. T. &Eove., in which case it was not needful to place raic before év toi¢ 
éxoupaviow, seeing that the év toi¢ éxovpav., more precisely fixing the definition 
of the notion of the apyai and éfovoia (for even upon earth there are dpyai 
and é£ovoia:), is blended into a unity of notion with those two words,° so 
that there is no linguistic necessity for connecting, as does Matthies,” év toi¢ 
éxoup. With yywp. —The question why Pauldid not write simply toi¢ ayyédore 
is not to be answered, with Hofmann, to the effect, that the spirits ruling 
in the ethnic world are intended, because such a special reference of the 
general expression +r. apy. x. 7. éfovc. must have been specified (by the addi- 
tion of ray évev, or something of that sort); but to the effect, that the 
designation of the angels on the side of their power and rank, in contradis- 
tinction to the dia tic éxxAnoiac, serves for the glorifying of the éxxrycia. The 
designation corresponds to the fulness and the lofty pathos by which the 
whole passage is marked. In i. 21, also, an analogous reason is found, 
namely, the glorifying of Christ. It is to be observed, in general, that the 
name dyyeAoc does not occur at allin our Epistle. — did rH¢ éxxAgoiac] The 


1 Grotius, Meier. 

2 Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, not Estius. 
3 Zeger, Knatchbull. 

4 Schéttgen, Locke. 


heavenly—as the kingdom of God.”’ In the 
heavenly kingdom the wisdom of God be- 
comes manifest by means of the church, 
and particularly to these high and mighty 


5 van Til. ones, because these are now, in the heayen- 
6 Zorn. ly kingdom founded by Christ, brought, by 
7 Zeltner, comp. Baumgarten. means of the church, to the consciousness of 
5 See in Wolf. their powerlessness.—Thus, in fact, there are, 


® Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 195. 

10 The whole apprehension of our passage 
by Matthies is mistaken. He refers to 7a 
mavta «tic. to all that God has either cre- 
ated in the natural reference of the term, 
or accomplished in a spiritual respect for 
the salvation of men. According to his 
view, ‘va applies to 76 ta 7. Ktio.; apxat Kat 


as well in the notion of «rigew as in that of 
apxat «. e€ove., two wholly different con- 
ceptions combined, in opposition to the 
hermeneutic principle of the unity of the 
sense ; Ta erovpavia is arbitrarily generalized 
in a spiritualistic way, and the thought that 
the apyai cai e€ovciac are brought to the 
consciousness of their powerlessness is 


efovaiac are ‘“‘the high and mighty ones 
who live in the world, or even in an.invis- 
ible spiritual manner play their part in the 
same ;” ta émovparia is to be taken ‘Sas the 
actually subsisting aggregate of all that is 


purely imported, and the more mistakenly, 
inasmuch as it is God’s cod¢iéa, not His 
Svvauts, Of which it is here said that it is 
made manifest to the apxai cat éfous. 


416 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 


Christian church (i.e., the collective body of believers regarded as one com- 
munity, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28, x. 82, xv. 9; Gal. i. 11 ; Phil. iii. 6 ; Col.i. 
18, 24,—hence not betraying the later Catholic notion) is, in its existence 
and its living development, as composed of Jews and Gentiles combined in 
a higher unity, the medium de facto for the divine wisdom becoming known, 
the actual voucher of the same ; because it is the actual voucher of the 
redemption which embraces all mankind and raises it above the hostile 
contrast of Judaism and heathenism,—this highest manifestation of the 
divine wisdom (Rom. xi. 32 f.). To the angels, in accordance with their 
ministering interest in the work of redemption (Matt. xviii. 10 ; Luke xv. 
7,10; 1 Cor. xi. 10; Heb. i. 14.; 1 Pet. i. 12), the church of theredeemem: 
is therefore, as it were, the mirror, by means of which the wisdom of God 
exhibits itself to them. [See Note XXX., p. 431.] — woAvmoixAoc].1 It 
signifies much-manifold, i.e., in ahigh degree manifold, quite corresponding 
to the Latin multivarius. That it signifies very wise” has been erroneously 
assumed from Aesch. Prom. 1808, where roix:Aoc means crafty. As roAvroi= 
kiAoc, the wisdom of God manifests itself to the angels through the church, 
inasmuch as the counsel of the redemption of the world is therein pre- 
sented to them in its universal realization, and they thus behold the mani- 
fold ways and measures of God, which He had hitherto taken with reference 
to the Jews and Gentiles, all now in their connection with the institute of 
redemption,—all uniting in this as their goal. The church is thus for 
them, as regards the manifold wisdom of God, the central fact of revelation ; 
for the rodurorkitove ddov¢ Ocov, Which they before knew not as to their ulti- 
mate end, but only in and by themselves (and how diverse were these ways 
with the Jews and with the Gentiles !), they now see in point of fact, 
through the church (‘‘haec enim operum divinorum theatrum est,” ‘ for 
this is the theatre of divine works,” Bengel), as zoduroixiAoc cogia. Thus 
by the appearing of the éxxAyoia as a fact in the history of salvation, the 
wisdom of the divine government of the world has been on every side 
unveiled and brought to recognition. Entirely without warrant, Baur 
assumes, p. 429, that the Gnostic cogia, with its heterogeneous forms and 
conditions,? was present to the mind of the writer. 

Ver. 11. Kara zpdfeow tov aidvev] belongs neither to roAvroixAoc,* nor to 
cogia,° nor does it relate to ver. 9,° nor yet to all that precedes from ver. 8 or 
ver. 5,* but to iva yrupioby «.7.4., giving information important in its bearing 
on this iva : in accordance with the purpose of the world-periods, i.e., in con- 
formity with the purpose which God had during the world-periods (from 
the commencement of the ages up to to the execution of the purpose) ; for 
already xpo kataBoArye kéopuov it was formed, i. 8, but from the beginning of 
the world-ages it was hidden in God, ver. 9. On the genitive, comp. Jude 
6; Ps. exlv. 13; Winer, p. 169. Others, incorrectly, take it as : the pur- 
pose concerning the different periods of the world, according to which, namely, 





! Eur. Jph. 7. 1149; Eubul. in Athen. xy. 4 Holzhausen. 
p. 678 D; Orph. vy. 11, Ix. 4. 5 Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius. 
2 Wolf, Koppe, Rosenmiiller. 6 Michaelis. 


3 Comp. Iren. Haer. i. 41. 7 Flatt, comp. Zanchius, Morus. 


CHAP OMinay laa Las 41? 
God at first chose no people, then chose the Jews, and lastly called Jews 
and Gentiles to the Messianic kingdom;?’ for it is only the one purpose, ac- 
complished in Christ, that is spoken of. See what follows. According to 
Baur, xara rpd0eow rovaidv. means : according to what God ideally proposed 
to Himself in the aeons (that is, the subjects of the divine ideas, constitut- 
ing as such the essence of God). According to the Gnostic view, this 
returns, after it has been accomplished in Christ, as the realized idea back 
into itself. — fv éroiyoev év X. ’I.] applies not to codia,*? but to tpdfecv, and 


means : which He has fulfilled in Christ Jesus.6 Comp. 76 0éAnua roveiv (il. 
3; Matt. xxi. 31; John vi. 38), ty yrouny roveiv (Acts xvii. 17). Others: 
which He has formed in Christ Jesus.* Linguistically admissible. Comp. 


Mark iii. 6, xv. 1; Isa. xxix. 15; Herod. i. 127. But the context tells in 
favor of the first-named interpretation, since what follows is the explana- 
tion assigning the ground of the purpose not as formed, but as carried into 
effect ; hence not merely év Xpior@ is said, but év Xpior@ "Iyood (comp. i. 5), 
since not the forming of that purpose, but its accomplishment, took place in 
the historically manifested Messiah, Jesws—in Him, in His personal self- 
sacrifice is the realization of that divine purpose contained. 

Ver. 12. Ev 6 «.7.”.] gives the experimentally (éyouer) confirmatory proof 
for the just stated jy éroincev év X. I. See oni. 7. — rv rappyciav] denotes 
not the libertatem dicendi, ‘‘ freedom of speech,” as at vi. 19, since not mere- 
ly the apostle’s® experimental consciousness, but that of the Christian is, in 
harmony with the context, expressed by éyouev; and the limitation to 
prayer © is entirely arbitrary. It is rather the free, joyful mood of those recon- 
ciled to God, in which they are assured of the divine grace (the opposite : 
fear of God’s wrath). Comp. Heb. iii. 6, iv. 16, x. 19, 35 ; 1 John ii. 28, 
iii. 21, iv. 17, v. 14; also Wisd. v. 1, and see Grimm in loc.; Bleek on 
Hebr. 1.1, p.416 f. This rappycia nar’ éFoxHvé, ‘ pre-eminently,” is de- 
noted by the article. —xai t7v xpocaywyjv| See on ii. 18. Likewise a for- 
mally consecrated notion. — év rerobjoer] Fundamental disposition, im which 
we have, etc. For without confidence (see, as to reroif., on 2 Cor. i. 15) the 
rappyoia and the zpocaywyf are not possible. How gloriously is this reroifyouc 
on the part of the apostle expressed at e.g. Rom. viii. 38 f. !— dia ri¢ rioTews 
airov| Causa medians, ‘‘instrumental cause,” of the éyouev «.7.4. Christ is 
the objective ground on which this rests, and faith in Christ is the subjec- 
tive means for its appropriation and continued possession, Rom. v. 1,2. In 
avrov there is implied nothing more than in eic airéy (see on Rom, iil. 22 ; 
Gal. iii. 22), and what Matthies finds in it (the faith having reference to 
Him alone) is a sheer importation. 

Ver. 13. Once more reviewing the whole section concerning the great 
contents of his office as apostle of the Gentiles (vv. 2-12), he con- 


' Schoettgen, comp. Chrysostom, Theo- 
phylact, Estius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Baum- 
garten, Semler. 

2 Jerome, Luther, Moldenhauer. 

3So Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Zacha- 
riae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen, Mat- 
thies, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek and 


2% 


others. 

4 So Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaelis, Mo- 
rus, e¢ al., including Flatt, Riickert, Meier, 
Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius; also Hof- 
mann, Schriftbew. I. p. 230. 

5 Vatablus. 

® Bengel, Holzhausen. 


418 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

cludes it, in especial retrospective reference to the introduction there- 
of (ver. 1), with the entreaty to the readers not to become discouraged, 
etc., in order thereupon yet further to attach to ver. 14 ff. a rich out- 
pouring of intercession for them, which terminates in an enthusiastic 
doxology (ver. 20f.). According to this view, dio has its reference not merely 
in ver. 12, but in the whole of what Paul has said, vv. 2-12, regarding his 
office, namely : On that account, because so great and blissful a task has by 
God’s grace been assigned to me in my calling, I entreat you, etc. The 
greater the office conferred by God, the less does it become those whom it 
concerns to take offence or become downcast at the sufferings and persecu- 
tions of its holder. — 7 éxxaxeiv] applies to the readers: that ye become not 
disheartened, faint-hearted and cowardly in the confession of the gospel,— 
not to Paul: that I become not disheartened, as Syriac, Theodoret, Jerome, 
Bengel, Semler, and others, including Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius [Hofm. Braune, Cremer Wérterb.], take it. In opposition 
to the latter, it may be urged that the supplying of Oeéy after airodua, 
demanded in connection therewith, is in no wise indicated by the context, 
which rather in the bare airotwa: (comp. 2 Cor. v. 20, x. 2) conveys only the 
idea of arequest to the readers (it is otherwise at Col. i. 9; Jas. 1. 6). 
Further, #rv¢ gor défa tuév manifestly contains a motive for the readers, to 
fulfil that which Paul entreats. Only from rotrov yapiv, ver. 14, begins an 
intercession for the readers, that God may strengthen them.’ The won, finally, 
after @2fpeor is wholly superfluous, if Paul is imploring constancy for him- 
self ; but not, if he is beseeching the readers not to become faint-hearted, 
while he is suffering for them.—As to the form éyxaxety in Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, and Riickert, see on 2 Cor. iv. 1. — év rai¢ OAineci pov irép wm. | 
in the tribulations which I endure for your sake (namely, as apostle of the 
Gentiles). Comp. Paul’s own so touching comment upon this irép tuév, in 
Phil. ii. 17. The év denotes the subsisting relation, in which their courage is 
not to give way. See Winer, p. 346. To this conception the explanation 
on account of? is also to be referred. irép iuev is rightly attached, without 
repetition of the article, to raic¢ Ai. wov, because one may say OAiBecba drép 
tivoc (2 Cor. i. 6 ; comp. Col. i. 24). Comp. on Gal. iv. 14. Harless con- 
nects ixép ip. with airovuar : IT pray for your benefit. How violently opposed 
to the order of the words, and, with the right view of airoiua:, impossible } 
— ric éoti 06£a buoy] is designed to animate to the fulfilment of the entreaty, 
so that ric introduces an explanation serving as a motive thereto,? not 
equivalent to 7, but referring what is predicated ‘‘ad ipsam ret naturam,” 
‘to the very nature of the subject,” 4 like gui quidem, quippe qui, utpote 
qui. ru may be referred either to the 7 éxkaxeiv,® or to taic OAipeot wov bmép 
juav (so usually). In either case the relative is attracted by the following 


1 Harless finds, with Rhenferd (in Wolf), 
the connection: “ ut p70 se primum, tum pro 
Ephesiis oret.”” But this change of the per- 
sons would have needed to be indicated by 
emphatic pronouns, if it were not to be 
looked upon as imported. 

2 Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, Estius, and 


others. 

3 Herm. ad Oed. R. 688; Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. U1. p. 385. 

4 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. p. 190. 

5 Theodoret, Zanchius, Harless, Olshau- 
sen, Schenkel. 


CHA Perirs, 145 Malo. 419 
dé£a, and this not as Hebraizing,' but asa Greek usage.? The usual reference 
is the right one ; the sufferings of the apostle for the readers were a glory crt 
the latter, it redounded to their honor that he suffered for them,* and this 
relation could not but raise them far above the éxxaxeiv, else they would not 
have accorded with the thought brought to their consciousness by the #ri¢ 
éori déEa tuov. The referring of 7rv¢ to su) éxxaxeiv is inconsistent with the 
correct explanation of the latter (see above) ; for if Paul had said that it 
was glorious for the readers not to grow faint, he would either have given 
expression to a very general and commonplace thought, or else to one of 
which the specific contents must first be mentally supplied (gloria spiritualis, 
‘spiritual glory”); whereas the proposition: ‘‘my tribulations are your 
glory,” isin a high degree appropriate alike to the ingenious mode of ex- 
pression, and to the apostolic sense of personal dignity, in which is im- 
plied a holy pride. Comp. Phil. ii. 17. 

Vv. 14, 15.4 Totrov yap] on this account, in order that ye may not become 
disheartened, ver. 13. Against the view that there is here a resumption of 
ver. 1, see on that verse. —kdurto x.t.2.] tiv Katavevvypévgy dénoww EdhAwoer, 
‘He indicated his entranced supplication,” Chrysostom. See on Phil. ii. 
10. ‘‘ A signorem denotat,” ‘‘ from the sign he denotes the thing,” Calvin ; 
so that we have not, with Calovius and others, to think of an actual falling 
on his knees during the writing. Comp. Jerome, who makes reference to 
the genua mentis, ‘‘knees of the mind.” — rpéc] direction of the activity : 
before the Father. —é& ob xaoa rarpia x.7.2.] Instead of saying : before the 
Father of all angels and men (a designation of God which naturally suggested 
itself to him as an echo of the great thoughts, ver. 10 and ver. 6), Paul ex- 
presses himself more graphically by an ingenious paronomasia, which can- 
not be reproduced in German (rarépa . . . ratpid) : from whom every family 
in heaven and upon earth bears the name, namely, the name zarpia, because God 
is rarfp of all these ratpiai. Less simple and exact, because not rendering 
justice to the purposely chosen expression employed by Paul only here, is the 
view of de Wette : ‘‘every race, z.e., every class of beings which have arisen 
(2), bears the name of God as its Creator and Father, just as human races 
bear the name from their ancestor, e.g., the race of David from David.” — é&¢ 
ov] forth from whom ; origin of the name, which is derived from God as 
Tathp.° —raoa ratpia| matpid, with classical writers ordinarily zazpa, is equiv- 


1 Beza, Matthies, and many. 

2 Comp. as regards the ordinary exegesis, 
according to which the number also is at- 
tracted, Dem. ¢. Aphod. p. 853. 381: Exer . . . 
oySonkovTa pev pvas, Hv eAaBe mpoika THs 
wntpos ; and see, in general, Winer, p. 150. 

3 This assertion stands in correct connec- 
tion with his high apostolic position. That 
the apostle as Séop10s tov Xpicrod suffered 
for the Gentile-Christians, could only re- 
dound to the honor of the latter, inasmuch 
as they could not but appear of the higher 
value. the more he did not refuse to under- 
go afflictions for them. This we remark in 


opposition not only to Riickert, who finds 
it most advisable to leave the contents of 
the clause indefinite, in order not to deprive 
it of its oratorical significance, but also in 
opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who 
are of opinion that the sufferings of the 
apostle could not in themselves be any 
glory for the Gentile-Christians. They are 
so on account of the dignity of the sufferer, 
and of his velation to those for whose sake he 
suffered. 

4 On ver. 15, see Reiche, Comm. Crit. 
p. 156 ff. 

5 On ovopdgeo dar ex, comp. Hom. ZZ. x. 68: 


420 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

alent to gens, a body belonging to a common stock, whether it be meant in 
the narrower sense of a family,’ or in the wider, national sense of a tribe 
(Acts iii. 25 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 28 ; Ps. xxii. 27 ; Herod. i. 200). In the latter 
sense here ; for every gens in the heavens can only apply to the yarious 
classes of angels (which are called rarpcai, not as though there were propaga- 
tion among them, Matt. xxii. 30, but because they have God as their Creator 
and Lord for a Father [see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. II. 106, Amer. ED.] ; as a 
suitable analogue, however, to the classes of angels, appear on earth not the 
particular families, but the nationalities. Rightly Chrysostom and his suc- 
cessors explain the word by yeveai or yévy. The Vulgate has paternitas, a 
sense indicated also by Jerome, Theodoret, and others. Theodoret says : 6c 
dAnhoc imapyet Tatyp, b¢ ov Tap’ GAAov TovTO AaBav Eyer, AAW avTo¢ Toi¢g GAAoLC 
petadédwxe Tovto, ‘* who is truly a father, since he has this, not by receiving 
it from another, but himself communicated it to the rest.”” This view (comp. 
Goth.: ‘‘all fadreinis’”’) is expressed by Luther (approved in the main by 
Harless [and by Cremer, Lexicon]) : Who is the true Father over all that are 
called children, etc. But xarpid never means fathership or fatherliness (ra- 
tpéryc), and what could be the meaning of that fathership im heaven ?? 
naca, every, shows that Paul did not think only of two rarpiai, the totality 
of the angels and the totality of men,* or of the blessed in heaven and the 
elect on earth,* but of a plurality, as well of angelic as of human zarprai ; 
and to this extent his conception is, as regards the numerical form, though 
not as regards the idea of rarpid, different from that of the Rabbins, accord- 
ing to which the angels® are designated as familia superior, ‘‘the higher 
family.” * Some have even explained raca ratpid as the whole family, in which 
case likewise either the angels and men," or the blessed in heaven and Christians 
on earth,® have been thought of : but this is on the ground of linguistic usage 
erroneous. Comp. on ii. 21. [See Note XXXI., p. 431 seq. ] — ovouagerac] 
bears the name, namely, the name rartpid ; see above. The text does not 
yield anything else ;° and if many ” have understood the name children of 


matpovev ex yeveyns ovouagwy avSpa Exactov. 
Xen. Mem. iv. 5. 123 €pyn S€ wai 7d Stadéye- 
ada. ovopacidyvar eK TOU OVUVLOVTaS KoLYH 
BovAeveodar. Soph. Qed. R. 1036. 

17To this head belongs also the Jewish- 
genealogical distinction from @vAn, accord- 
ing to which matpea denotes a branch of 
one of the twelve tribes (fvA@v). See on 
Luke ii. 4. Similarly in the sense of a 
family-association often with Pindar. On 
the relation of the word to the kindred 
dpatpia, see Boeckh, ad Pind. Nem. V. L. 
iv. 47; Dissen, p. 887; Hermann, Staatsal- 
terth. § 5. 4, 10. 

2 Jerome findsit in the archangels, and 
Theodoret says: ovpaviovs matépastovs 
mvevmattikovs Kade, and cites 1 Cor. 
iv. 15. 

3 Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Koppe, and 
others. 


4 Calovius, Wolf. 

5 With the Cabbalists, the Sephiroth. 

6 See Wetstein, p. 247 f. ; Buxtorf., Zea. 
Talm. p. 1753; Schoettgen, Horae, p. 1237 f. 

7 Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Meier, 
Olshausen, and earlier expositors. 

8 Beza. 

® For the very reason that Paul does nof 
put any defining addition to dvoyagerar (in 
opposition to Reiche’s objection). Nor is 
it to be objected, with Reiche, that the 
human zazpra bears the name not from 
God, but from the human ancestor. This 
historical relation remains entirely unaffect- 
ed by the /igher thought, that they are 
calledwrazpia from the universal, heavenly 
Father. 

10 Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, 
Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and 
others, including Flatt and Olshausen. 


CHAP. III., 14, 15. 421 


God, thisis purely imported. Others have taken ‘‘ nomen pro re,” ‘‘ the name 
for the thing” (Zanchius, Menochius, Estius, et al.), so that ovowafecbac 
would denote evistere. So, too, Riickert, according to whom Paul designs 
to express the thought that God is called the Father, inasmuch as all that 
lives in heaven and upon earth has from Him existence and name (7.e., dig- 
nity and peculiarity of nature). Contrary to linguistic usage ; sivas ovoudterar 
must at least have been used in that case instead of ovoudfera:.* Incorrectly 
also Holzhausen : dvouafew means to call into existence. Reiche takes é& ov 
ovouaterac (of whom it bears the name) as the expression of the highest domin- 
ion and of the befitting reverence due, and refers raca razpua év ovp. to the 
pairings of the Aeons. The former without linguistic evidence : the latter 
a hysteroproteron. 


Remark 1.—In 2£ 0d . . . dvouaterar God is certainly characterized as univer- 
sal Father, as Father of all angel-classes in heaven and all peoples upon earth. Comp. 
Luther’s gloss: ‘All angels, all Christians, yea, all men, are God’s children, 
for He created them all.’’ But it is not at all meant by the apostle in the bare 
sense of creation, nor in the rationalistic conception of the all-fatherhood, when 
he says that every tarpia derives this name é« Ocov, as from its father ; but in 
the higher spiritual sense of the divine Fatherhood and the sonship of God. 
He thinks, in connection with the é& od, of a higher ratpdfev than that of the 
mere creation. For rarpvai, so termed from God as their rarzp, are not merely 
all the communities of angels, since these were indeed vioi Ocov from the begin- 
ning, and have not fallen from this vidryc ; but also all nationalities among 
men, inasmuch as not only the Jews, but also all Gentile nations, have obtained 
part in the Christian viofecia, and the latter are ovyKAnpovoua Kal ovoowpua Kai 
aupétoya THC Erayyediac Ev TH XptoTG (ver. 6). If this has not yet become com- 
pletely realized, it has at any rate already been so partially, while Paul writes ; 
and in God’s counsel it stands ideally as an accomplished fact. On that account 
Paul says with reason also of every nationality upon earth, that it bears the 
name satpid, because God is its Father. Without cause, therefore, Harless has 
taken offence at the notion of the All-fatherhood, which is here withal clearly 
though ideally expressed, and given to the passage a limitation to which the 
all-embracing mode of expression is entirely opposed: ‘‘ whose name every 
child [i.e., every true child] in heaven and upon earth bears.” Consequently, as 
though Paul had written something like: é& ob méca dAnOtvy matpia K.7.A. 
With a like imported limitation Erasmus, Paraphr.: ‘‘ omnis cognatio spiritu- 
alis, qua conglutinantur sive angeli in coelis, sive fideles in terris,” ‘‘ every spir- 
itual relationship, whereby either angels in heaven, or the believing on earth 
are united.” 

Remark. 2.—With the non-genuineness of Tov kvpiov judv "I. X. (see the crit- 
ical remarks) falls also the possibility of referring 2£ od to Christ.2 But if those 
words were genuine (de Wette, among others, defends them), é& od would still 
apply to God, because éé vd «.7.2, characterizes the fatherly relation, and iva 06 
«.T.A. applies to the Father. — Lastly, polemic references, whether in opposition 


1Comp. Isaeus, de Menecl. her. 41: rov 2 Beza, although with hesitation, Calvin, 
Tatépa, ov eivat wvonacdny, Plat. Pol. iv. p. Zanchius, Hammond, Cramer, Reiche, and 
428 E: dvoudgovtai tives eivar. others. 


422 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
to the particularism of the Jews,! or even in opposition to ‘‘scholam Simonis, qui 
plura principia velut plures Deos introducebat, ‘“«the school of Simon, which 
introduced a number of principles, as though a number of gods,” ? or, in oppo- 
sition to the worship of angels,* or in opposition to the Gnostic doctrine of 
Syzygies,* are to be utterly dismissed, because arbitrary in themselves and in- 
appropriate to the character and contents of the prayer before us. 


Ver. 16. "Iva 6] (see the critical remarks) introduces the design of the 
Kaurto k.t.A., and therewith the contents of the prayer. Comp. oni. 17, — 
Kata TO wAovTOC THE OdENE aiTov] 7.e., In accordance with the fact that His glory 
is in so great fulness. Comp. oni. 7. It may be referred either to 66 ipiv 
or to what follows. The former is the most natural ; comp. i. 17. <Ac- 
cording to His rich fulness in glory, God can and will bestow that which is 
prayed for. The ddfa, namely, embraces the whole glorious perfection of 
God, and can only with caprice be limited to the power® or to the grace.* — 
Suvauer kparawOjvac| instrumental dative : with power (which is instilled) to 
That which effects this 
strengthening is the Holy Spirit (dd tov rvebwaroc aitov). Comp. Rom. xy. 
18. According to Harless, it is dative of the form,’ so that the being 
strengthened in power is regarded as opposed to the being strengthened 
in knowledge, or the like. But to what end would Paul have added 
etc Tov gow arop., if he had meant such special strengthening? The 
strengthening is to concern the whole inner man; hence the reference 
to a single faculty of the mind (Olshausen refers dvvauer primarily to the 
will) has no ground in the context. Others have explained it adverbially : 
in a powerful manner.’ In this way divayzic would be power, which is ap- 
plied on the part of the strengthener.* But our interpretation better accords 
with the contrast of éxxaxeiv, which implies a want of power on the part of 
the readers. — tic tov éow avbpwrov| eic, not for év,”” but in reference to the in- 
ner man, containing the more precise definition of the relation.” The inner 
man (not to be identified with the xa:voc avOpwroc) is the subject of the voc, the 
rational and moral ego,—the essence of man which is conscious of itself as 
an ethical personality,—which is in harmony with the divine will (Rom. 
vil. 16, 25) ; but in the case of the unregenerate is liable to fall under 
bondage to the power of sin in the flesh (Rom. vii. 23), and even in the 
case of the regenerate ” needs constant renewing (iv. 23 ; Rom. xii. 2) and 
strengthening by the Spirit of God, whose seat of operation it is (dvvapec 


be strengthened; opposite of éxxaxeiv, ver. 13. 


1 Chrysostom, Calvin, Zanchius, and 8 Comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2. 


others. 10 Vulgate, Beza, and others. 
2 Estius. 11 See Kiihner, IT. § 557, note I. 
3 Michaelis. 12 Tt must be decided exclusively by the 
4 Reiche. connection on each oceasion, whether (as 


5 Grotius, Koppe, and others. 

® Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, and others; 
comp. Matthies, Holzhausen, Olshausen. 

7 Comp. icxvew Tots cHpacr, Xen. Mem. ii. 
aude 

® Beza, Vater, Riickert, Matthies. See 
Bos, ed. Schaef. p. 743 ; Matthiae, p. 897. 


here and 2 Cor. iv. 16; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 4) 
the inner man of the regenerate is intended, 
or that of the unregenerate (Rom. vii. 22). 
The man is regenerate, however (in opposi- 
tion to the evasive view in Delitzsech, Psych. 
p. 880 f.), only of water and the Spirit (Tit. 
iii. 5). 


CHAP. II1., 17. 423 


KparawOyvar dia Tov Tvebuatoc), in order not to be overcome by the sinful de- 
sire in the caps, of which the wuvy7, the animal soul-nature, is the living 
principle (Gal. v. 16 f. ). The opposite is 6 &&o dvOpwroc (2 Cor. iv. 16), 
z.e., the man as an outward phenomenon, constituted by the caua rij¢ capkéc 
(Col. ii. 11), which, by reason of its psychical quality (1 Cor. xv. 44), is the 
seat of sin and death (Rom. vi. 6, vii. 18, 24). The inner man in and by 
itself is—by virtue of the moral nature of its votc, as the Hyo exerting the 
moral will, and assenting to the divine law (Rom. vii. 20, 22)—directed to 
the good, yet without the renewing and strengthening by the Holy Spirit 
too weak for accomplishing, in opposition to the sinful principle in the 
cape, the good which is perceived, felt, and willed by it (Rom. vii. 15-23). 
[See Note XXXII., p. 452.] We may add, it is all the less an ‘‘ absurd as- 
sertion,”’ that the conceptions 6 éow and 6 2 aOpwroc are derived from 
Plato’s philosophy,* inasmuch as for the apostle also the voic in itself is the 
moral faculty of thinking and willing in man ; inasmuch, further, as the 
Platonic dichotomy of the human soul-life into rveiua (vovc) and wvyq is 
found also in Paul (1 Thess. v. 23 ; comp. Heb. iv. 12), and inasmuch as 
the Platonic expressions had become popular (comp. also 1 Pet. iii. 4), so 
that with the apostle the Platonism of that mode of conception and expres- 
sion by no means needed to be a conscious one, or to imply an acquaintance 
with the Platonic philosophy as such. [See Note XXXIII., p. 432.] 

Ver. 17. Karoixjoat «.7.A.| Parallel to dvvdyer xpatawOyva, ete., which 
**declarat, quale sit interioris hominis robur,” ‘‘ declares the nature of that 
strength which belongs to the inner man,” Calvin. According to Riickert, 
something different from what forms the object of the first petition is here 
prayed for, and there is a climax. In this way we should have, in the 
absence of a connecting particle, to take the infinitive, with de Wette, as 
the infinitive of the aim ; but the circumstance that with Christians the 
being strengthened by the Spirit, who is indeed the Spirit of Christ, can- 
not at all be thought of as different from the indwelling of Christ (Rom. 
wi. 9) 10> 2 Cor. xi.9; Phil. iv. 13 ; Rom: xv. 17 f.), and. the subse- 
quent éppif. «. tefeu., which manifestly further expresses the conception of 
the kpatawjva, decide for the former view. The explanatory element, 
however, lies in the emphatically prefixed xarovxjou : that Christ may take 
up His abode by means of faith in your hearts. In the Holy Spirit, namely, 
which is the Spirit of Christ (see on Rom. viii. 9, 10; Gal. ii. 20, iv. 6 ; 
2 Cor. ii. 17), Christ fulfils the promise of His spiritual presence in the 
hearts (John xiv. 23; comp. above, on ii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 5), in which 
faith is the appropriating instrument on the part of man (hence did tHe rlo- 
tewc). Where thus there isaxpatacodgvac did tov rvebuaroc, there is also 
to be found a cxarocxgoae of Christ ; because the former is not possible 
without a continuous activity of Christ in the hearts. Opposed to the 
caroxjoa Of Christ in the hearts is a transitory (xpécxacpoc) reception of the 
Holy Spirit (Gal. ili. 3). A more precise definition, by virtue of which the 


1 Harless. and Philo, in Wetstein, and Fritzsche on 
2 See the passages from Plato, Plotinus, Rom. vii. 22. 


424 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

clause karovkjoat x.7.2. may in reality be an explanatory clause to that which 
precedes, is thus before us, namely, in the prefixed emphatic karovjoar it- 
self. This in opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who find this more pre- 
cise definition only in the following év ay. épfut. «. tebe. —On xatorxety in 
the spiritual sense, comp. Col. i. 19, ii. 9 ; Jas. iv. 5; 2 Pet. ili. 13; Test. 
XII. Patr. pp. 652, 7384; and the passages in Theile, ad Jac. p. 220. 
The conception of the temple, however, is not found here ; for the temple 
would be the dwelling of God, and Christ the corner-stone, ii. 20 ff. 

Ver. 18. ’Ev ayarn éppit. x. Tebfepu.'] is not to be separated by interpunction 
from the following iva, because it belongs to iva x.r.2.:1 in order that, rooted 
and grounded in love, ye may be able, etc. Thus the aim of the two preced- 
ing parallel infinitive clauses is expressed, and the emphatically prefixed év 
ay. éppit. x. Tebeu. is quite in keeping with the Pauline doctrine of the ricric 
Sv ayarne évepyovuévn, Gal. v. 6 ; 1 Cor. xiii. Through the strengthening 
of their “1ner man by means of the Spirit, through the karouxjoas of Christ 
in their .earts, the readers are to become established in love, and, haying 
been established in love, are able to comprehend the greatness of the love 
of Christ. How often iva and other conjunctions follow a part of the sen- 
tence which is with special emphasis prefixed, no matter whether that part 
of the sentence be subject or object (Rom. xi. 31 ; 2 Cor. ii. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 
7; Acts xix. 4; Gal. ii. 10, al.), may be seen in Fritzsche,? Buttmann.® 
Comp. on Gal. ii. 10.* év ay. éppit. x. Tee. 18, on the other hand, connected 
with what precedes by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, Estius, Er. 
Schmid, Michaelis, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Riickert, Mat- 
thies, Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek, holding 
that it attaches itself, with abnormal employment of case, predicatively to 
év taic Kapd. huov." To the abnormal nominative of the construction contin- 
ued in participles there would be in itself nothing to object ;° but here the 
perfect participles are opposed to this, since they in fact would express not 
the state into which the readers are to come,’ but the state in which they 
already are,* the state which is presupposed as predicate of the readers.° But 
to the desire that the readers might be strengthened, and that Christ might 
make His dwelling in their hearts, the presupposition that they were already 
év ayary éppiCouévor Would stand in quite illogical relation. Present partici- 
ples would be logically necessary : ‘‘inasmuch as ye are being confirmed in 
love,” namely, by the fact that Christ takes up His dwelling in you. 
De Wette, on the other hand, is wrong in appealing to Col. ii. 7, where, in- 


1 Comp. Lachmann. natural, inasmuch as the predicate is 


2 Ad Rom. II. p. 541. 

3 Neut. Gr. p. 333 [E. T. 389]. 

4 This construction is here followed by 
Beza, Cajetanus, Camerarius, Heinsixs, 
Grotius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Rosen- 
miiller, Flatt, Meier, Schenkel, and others, 
including Winer, § 63, 1, and Buttmann 
[E. T. 299]. Comp. already Photius in Oe- 
cumenius. 

° Harless holds that the changing of the 
construction is here, as Col. ii. 2, the more 


equally applicable to capStars and buay, and 
as an essential element must stand forth in- 
dependently. 

® See already Photius in Oecumenius, ad 
loc. ; Winer, p. 505, Buttmann, p. 256 [B. T. 
299]. 

7™“Tta utin amore sitis stabiles,” “That 
ye may be stable in loye,’’ Morus. 

§So also Riickert. 

® So Harless and Olshausen. 


CHAP Til, sltee 425 


deed, in the case of éppiGouévor the having received Christ appears as having 
already preceded. — év ayazy] is, in accordance with the following figures, 
the soi/ in which the readers were rooted and grounded, namely, in dove, the 
effect of faith, Christian brotherly love ; hence there is no reason in the rela- 
tion of faith to love’ for supplying after épfif. x. rebeu., with Holzhausen 
and Harless, év Xpior@, which is not even required by the anarthrous ayary; 
for without an article (ir amando, ‘‘in loving”), it has ‘* vim quasi verbi,” 
‘Cas it were the force of a verb,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.9. Such a 
supplement is, however, the more arbitrary, inasmuch as there is already a 
definition by év ; consequently the reader could not light upon the idea of 
supplying such in thought. év ay. éppul. x. TeOeu. is prefived with emphasis, 
because only the loving soul is in a position to recognize the love of Christ 
(comp. 1 John iv. 7ff.). Erroneously Beza says :  ‘ charitatem intellige, gua 
diligimur a Deo,” ‘understand charity, whereby we are beloved of God,” ? 
and Bengel holds that the love ef Christ, ver. 19, is meant ; agai which 
in the very mention of love along with faith (i. 15; 1 Cor. xiii.) the absence 
of a genitival definition is decisive.- [See Note XXXIV., p. 432 seq.] — 
éppit. Kai reBewer.| a twofold figurative indication of the sense: steadfast and 
enduring. Paul, in the vivacity of his imagination, conceives to himself the 
congregation of his readers as a plant (comp. Matt. xiii. 3 ff.), perhaps a 
tree (Matt. vii. 17), and at the same time as a building. Comp. Col. ii. 7 ; 
1 Cor. ili. 9. Passages from profane literature for the tropical usage of 
both words may be seen in Raphel, Herod. p. 534 ; Bos, Hvere. p. 183 ; 
Wetstein, p. 248.2— éicytonre] ye may be fully able (Ecclus. vii. 6 ; Plut. 
Mor. p. 801 E ; Strabo, xvi. p. 788). — xataAaBécbac| to apprehend, xatavoeiv. 
Comp. Acts iv. 13, x. 34, xxv. 25 ; Josephus, Antt. viii. 6. 5, with classical 
writers in the active. Comp. on Johni. 5. Strangely at variance with the 
context (because the object is not suited thereto), Holzhausen takes it to 
mean to lay hold of, asa prize in the games (1 Cor. ix. 24 ; Phil. ili. 12). — 
avy maot Toic ayiowe| The highest and most precious knowledge (Phil. iii. 8) 
Paul can desire only as a common possession of a/l Christians ; individuals, 
for whom he wishes it, are to have it in communion with all; as the knowl- 
edge of the ground of salvation, so the attaining of the salvation itself (Acts 
XX. 32). —Ti Td wAdro¢ k.7.A.] Sensuous illustration (arbitrarily declared by 
de Wette to be ‘‘ hardly” in keeping with the Pauline style) of the idea : 
how great in every relation. The deeply affected mind with its poetico-imag- 
inative intuition looks upon the metaphysical magnitude asa physical, mathe- 
matical one, cwwatikoic oxhuwact, ‘in corporeal characters,” 4 extending on every 
side. Comp. Job xi. 7-9, The many modes of interpreting the several di- 
mensions in the older expositors may be seen in Cornelius 3 Lapide and 
Calovius. very special attempt at interpretation is unpsychological, and 


1 Calvin already aptly remarks: ‘‘neque naces debeamus esse in caritate,”’ ‘ How 
enim disputat P., wbt salus nostra fundata firm and tenacious we should be in love”). 


sit... sed quam firma et tenax debeat in 2 So also Calovius, Wolf, and others. 
nobis esse caritas,’ ‘*‘ For Paul does not 3 Comp. the Fathers in Suicer’s Zvhes. II. 
dispute as to where our love isfounded... __p. 905. 

but how firm and tenacious love in us 4 Chrysostom. 


should be” (rather; ‘‘ quam firmi et te- 


426 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

only gives scope to that caprice which profanes by dissecting the outpour- 
ing of enthusiasm.! Of what, however, are these dimensions predicated? Not 
of the Christian church, as the spiritual temple of God, Rev. xxi. 16,? which 
is at variance with the context ; inasmuch as a temple is not spoken of 
either before or after (tefeueAcwpévor . . Not of the 
work of redemption,* because, after anew portion of the discourse is com- 
menced with ver. 14, the pvorfpiov is not again mentioned ; hence also not 
of the mystery of the cross, in connection with which marvellous allegories 
are drawn by Augustine and Estius from the jigure of the cross.* Not of 
the love of God to us ;° because previously év ayary does not apply to this 
love. Not of the ‘‘ divine gracious nature,” ° which would only be correct if 
the predicates were exclusive attributes of the divine nature, so that, as a 
matter of course, the latter would suggest itself as the subject. Not of the 
wisdom of God, which de Wette quite irrelevantly introduces from Col. ii. 
3; Job xi. 8. The love of Christ to men, ver. 19, is the subject,’ the bound- 
less greatness of which is depicted.* Instead, namely, of the apostle add- 
ing ti¢ ayary¢e Tov Xpiorod immediately after ioc and thus bringing to a 
close the majestic flow of his discourse, now, when he has written as far as 
boc, there first presents itself to his lively conception the—as regards sense, 
climactically parallel to the just expressed karaAaBéoba . . . toc—oxymoron 
yrovae tiv irepBaAAovoay Tie yvocewc; he appends this, and can now no longer 
express the love of Christ in the genitive, so that 1d mAdroc . . . bpoc 


. TO TAGpwua Tov Bod !). 


1 By way of example, we subjoin some of 
these modes of explanation, €.g., Oecu- 
menius ; it isindicated that redemption and 
the knowledge of Christ were foreordained 
from eternity (u7j«os), extend to all (7Aaros), 
reach even to hell in their efficacy (Bavdos), 
and that Christ has ascended above the 
heavens (WWos). Erasmus, Paraphr.; ‘ alti- 
tudine ad angelos usque se proferens, pro- 
Junditate ad inferos usque penetrans, long- 
ttudine ac latitudine ad omnes hujus mundi 
plagas sese dilatans,” ‘‘ in height reaching 
to the angels, in depth penetrating to hell, 
in length and breadth stretching itself to all 
the regions of this world.” Grotius, ‘‘latis- 
sime se effundit in omnes homines, et in 
longum, 7.é., in omnia saecula se extendit, 
et ex infima depressione hominem liberat, 
et in loca suprema evebit,” ‘‘ Most widely 
does it diffuse itself towards all men, and in 
its length it extends to all nations, and in its 
depth frees man from the /owest depression, 
and elevates him to the highest places.” For 
other instances, see Caloyvius. 

2 Heinsius, Homberg, Wolf, Michaelis, 
Cramer, Koppe, and others ; Comp. Bengel. 

3 Chrysostom: 70 pvaotyptoy 7d Urép Vudv 
oikovoundev, Theophylact, Oecumemius, 
Theodoret, Beza, Piscator, Zanchius, Calo- 
vius, and others, including Riickert, Meier, 
Harless, Olshansen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Bleek. 


4 According to Estius, the length applies 
to the upright beam of the cross as far as 
the cross-beam ; the breadth, to the ecross- 
beam ; the height, to the portion projecting 
above the cross-beam; the depth, to the 
portion fixed in the ground. He compre- 
hends the /ength of the cross, who perceives 
that from the beginning to the end of time 
no one is justified save by the cross; the 
breadth, who reflects that the church in all 
the earth has come forth from the side of 
Christ; the height, who ponders the sub- 
limity of the glory in heaven obtained 
though Christ ; the depth, who contemplates 
the mystery of the divine election of grace, 
and is thereby led to the utterance, Rom. 
xi. 832! This as a warning instance how 
even the better exegetes, when they give 
the reins to subjectivity, may lose them- 
selves in the most absurd attempts at inter- 
pretation. 

5 Chrysostom : 70 péyedos Tis ayamys TOD 
@cov, ‘the greatness of God’s love.” Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Vatablus, 
Grotius, Baumgarten, Flatt. 

6 Matthies. 

7 Castalio, Calvin, Calixtus, Zachariae, 
Morus, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen. 

§Comp. Luther: “that nothing is so 
broad, long, deep, high, as to be beyond the 
power and help of Christ.” 


CHAP; IE; 19. 42Q7 


remains without a genitive, but lays claim to its genitival definition as self- 
evident from the ayaryv tov Xpiorov Immediately following. 

Ver. 19. T'vévac] Parallel to catataBéodar. —ré] and, denotes, in a repeti- 
tion of words of corresponding signification (xara7aBéicda . . . yvavar), the 
harmony, the symmetrical relation of the elements in question ;1 hence we 
have the less to assume a climax in connection with yrévai re «.7.2., since this 
must have been hinted at least by yrovar dé, or more clearly by paAdov dé xat 
yvova, or the like. —riv irepBarr. ti¢ yvdoewc| The oxymoron (‘‘ suavissima 
haec quasi correctio est,” ‘‘ This is a very charming correction, so to speak,” 
Bengel) lies in the fact that an adequate knowledge of the love of Christ 
transcends human capacity, but the relative knowledge of the same opens 
up in a higher degree, the more the heart is filled with the Spirit of Christ, 
and thereby is itself strengthened in loving (vv. 17, 18), which knowledge 
is not of the discursive kind, but that which has its basis in the consciousness 
of experience. Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly says : 7d yvOvar avti Tod aroAadvcat 
Aéyet, ext mpaypatov elrav tiv yvdo.v, o¢ év Wadug TO éyvdpicd¢e por ddove Cyc, 
avr Tov év arodatoe: pe tHe Cane Katéotyoac, ‘‘He says ‘to know,’ instead of 
‘to enjoy,’ speaking of knowledge in respect to things, as in the Psalm, 
‘Thou hast made known to me the ways of life,’ instead of ‘Thou hast put 
me in the enjoyment of life.’”” The genitive ric yvécewc is dependent on the 
comparative irepBarAovear,? not upon ayaryv, from which construction the 
reading of Jerome,*® ayaryv tie yvécewc, has arisen, which in any case—even 
though we should understand, with Grotius, the love (to God and one’s 
neighbor) which flows from the knowledge of Christ—yields an inappropriate 
sense, and obliterates the oxymoron. —aydryv tov Xpiorov| genitive of the 
subject. It is the love of Christ to ws (Rom. viii. 35), shown in His atoning 
death (Gal. ii. 20 ; Rom. v. 6 f., a/.). Incorrect (although still unhappily 
enough defended by Holzhausen) is the view of Luther, 1545 :4 ‘that to 
love Christ is much better than all knowledge.” At variance with the 
words, since r7v izepB. tH¢ yvoc. can only be taken adjectively ; and at vari- 
ance with the context, since love to Christ is not spoken of in the whole 
connection. Comp., on the other hand, vv. 8, 12. —iva rAypwOjre x.7.2.] Aim 
of the é&ofbew KataAaBéchar . . . Xpiotov : in order that ye may be filled up to 
the whole fulness of God. 1d rAGpwpya tot Beov (comp. iv. 13, TA;pwua Tod 
Xpiorov) is, according to the context, which speaks of the operationes gratiae, 
‘* operation of grace” (vv. 16-18, 20), the charismatic fulness, which is be- 
stowed by God. Hence the sense : in order that ye may be filled with divine 
gifts of grace to such extent, that the whole fulness of them (xav has the empha- 
sis) shall have passed over upon you. rAhpoua namely, the definite meaning of 
which is gathered from the context (comp. on i. 10, i. 23), has, by virtue of 
its first signification : id quo res impletur, ‘that with which a thing is 
filled,” often also the derived general signification of copia, tA0vToc, rAAOoc, 
because that, by which a space is made full, appears as copiously present. 





1 Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 105. +In the earlier editions he had correctly : 
2 Hom. Z/. xxiii. 847; Plat. Gorg. p. 475 C; the love of Christ, which yet surpasses all 
Bernhardy, p. 170. knowledge. 


3 Also A, 74, 115, Al., Ar. p. 


428 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
So Song of Sol. v. 12: rAypouata idarTor, Rom. xv. 29! rAgpwpa evaoyiac 
Xpiorov, Eph. iv. 13;1' Eur. Jon. 664 : ¢iAwov rAjpoya. Comp. Hesychius : 
rhipapa’ xAjboc, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 471. Quite so the German Fitlle. 
Grotius takes it actively, thus as equivalent to rAgjpwow, making full: 
“‘donis, guibus Deus implere solet homines,” ‘‘ the gifts wherewith God is ac- 
customed to fill men.” This is not, indeed, at variance with linguistic usage 
(see on i. 10), but less simple, inasmuch as the passive rAypobyre most natu- 
rally makes us assume for 777poua also the passive notion, namely, that of 
the experienced divine fulness of gifts. Others, retaining the signification ; 
id quo res impletur, ‘‘that wherewith a thing is filled,” but not the signifi- 
cation copia, ‘‘ fulness,” derived therefrom, have assumed as the meaning : 
the perfection of God. See Chrysostom : wAnpovoba: rdong apeTig He TAR PHS 
éativ 6 Oedc, ‘to be filled with all the virtue whereof God is full.” 
Comp. Oecumenius and others. Recently so Riickert : ‘‘in order that you 
may be continually more filled with all perfection, until you have finally at- 
tained to all the fulness of the divine perfection.” Comp. Olshausen. But 
this goal cannot possibly be thought of by Paul as one to be realized in the 
temporal life (1 Cor. xiii. 10-12). This also in opposition to Matthies, who 
understands the infinite fulness of the—in grace, truth, etc., inexhaustible 
—essence of God, which has become manifest in Christ. Harless here, too 
(but see oni. 23), will have the gracious presence of the divine dd&a, with 
which God fills His people, to be meant ; just as Holzhausen make us think 
of the Shechinah filling the temple.? The church, however, is not according 
to the context here meant by zAjpaua ;3 and the turgid and involved analysis 
given by Schenkel in this sense is quite an arbitrary importation of meaning, * 
since cic. T. tAHp. T. O. Can only state simply that the rAnpwbjvai is to be a 
Jull one, consequently rav 7d rAApwua must be the totality of that which is 
communicated by the rAnpobjva. — cic] does not stand for év,° and does not 
signify either : into the very (becoming merged into), as Matthies, nor wp tow- 
ards, as Schenkel explains it, to which zAjpeua is not suitable ; but it in- 
dicates the quantitative goal of the fulfilment.*® 

Vv. 20, 21. That which is strictly speaking the prayer, the petition, is at 
an end ; but the confidence in the Almighty, who can still do far more, 
draws forth from the praying heart a right full and solemn ascription of 
praise, with the fulness of which that of Rom. xvi. 25-27 is to be compared. 
— trip ravta romjoa] to be taken together. \ To be able to do beyond all, i.e., 
more than all is a popular expression of the very highest active power ; so that 
mavra is quite unlimited, and it is not, with Grotius, arbitrarily to be limited 
by quae hactenus visa sunt, ‘‘ what has hitherto been seen.” This irép ravta 
does not belong to duvayévw,’ because otherwise rovjoa: would be superflu- 


1 Not even in John i. 16, where, rather, the 
context (ver. 14: wAyjpys xdpiros x.7.A.) de- 
mands the first signification : that, of which 
Christ is full. 

2 Comp. Baumgarten, Michaelis. 

5 Koppe, Stolz, and others. 

4 The world-whole (?) fulfilling itself (2) in 
God, i.e., completing itself unto the expression 


of the highest perfection, reflecting itself in the 
church (?), in so far as there is no longer found 
in it any want, any kind of defect.”” A com- 
plication of ideas, of which the clear-headed 
rational Paul was quite incapable. 

® Grotius, Estius, Rosenmiiller. 

®§ Matthiae, p. 1348. 

7 Holzhausen. 


CHAPP Ais elt 429 


ous ; nor does izép stand adverbially (2 Cor. xi. 23), as Bengel would have 
it, which could not occur to any reader on account of the xavra standing be- 
side it. There is nothing at which the action of God would have its limit ; 
He can do still more. —izepexrepicood dv aitotu. 7 voovtu.| a more precise 
definition to the universal and indefinite irép ravra, specializing and at the 
same time enhancing the notion of irép : above measure more than what we ask 
or understand. According to Riickert, dv airoiyu. has reference to ravra : Paul 
namely, instead of adding dv airoiu. immediately after rdavra, has first for 
the strengthening of the izép introduced the additional brepexrep., and now 
must needs annex in the genitive what ought properly, as construed with 
xavra, to follow in the accusative. A course in itself quite unnecessary ; 
and if the apostle had been concerned only about a strengthening of the 
ixép, and he had, in using rdyra, already had 4& airoiy. in his mind, he must 
have written after irepextep.: TavTov & airoiu.3 So that the sense would be: 
more than all (which we ask, etc.), exceedingly more than all, which we ask, 
etc. — imepexrepicoov] is, with the exception of 1 Thess. iii. 10, v. 13 (Elz.), 
codd. at Dan. iii. 22, nowhere else preserved.! | The frequent, and in part 
bold, compounds with tép used by Paul are at such places in keeping with 
the intensity of his pious feeling, which struggles after adequate expression. 
— oy, for roitwv a, is genitive of comparison.? —7j| Whether our asking or our 
apprehending be regarded, the one as the other is infinitely surpassed by God’s 
active power. ‘‘ Cogitatio latius patet quam preces ; gradatio,” ‘‘ Thought 
takes a wider range than prayers ; a gradation,” Bengel.— rv évepyoup. | not 
passive,” * but middle. See on Gal. v. 6. — év jjiv] in our minds, appeal to the 
consciousness of experience with regard to the divine power, which is at 
work in the continued enlightenment and whole Christian endowment of 
the inner man.* Michaelis arbitrarily refers it to the miraculous gifts, which 
in fact would be applicable only to individuals. 

Ver. 21. ai7¢] pointing back with rhetorical emphasis.* — 7 dééa] se. cin : 
the befitting honor. Comp. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Phil. iv. 20. 
Certainly God has the glory (i. 17), from which fact Harless explains the 
article ; but it is not of this that the doxologies speak, not of this fact being 
testified to God, but of His receiving the human praise, which to Him per- 
tains (Rev. iv. 11). Compare the conception, doivac défav ré O24, Luke 
xvii. 18 ; Acts xii. 23; John ix. 24 ; Rom. iv. 20 ; Rev. iv. 9. — év ri éxnd. 
év Xpior@ “I.| not to be taken together,* against which we may decidedly 
urge, not indeed the want of the article,—since 7 éxxAyoia év XpiorG, the 
Christian church, might be combined as one idea in contradistinction from 
the Jewish, or any other éxxAyoia whatever, —but the utter superfluousness 
of this distinguishing designation ; for that 7 éx«anoia was the Christian 
church, the éxcAnoia car ’éoxqv, ‘* pre-eminently,” was self-evident. Rather is év 


1 Comp., however, vzepexreptaaas, 1 Thess. # Chrysostom aptly remarks that this, too, 
v. 13; Clem. Cor. 1.20; Alay &k mepiccod, we should neither have asked nor hoped. 
Mark vi. 51; wmepreprcoas, Mark vii. 37; 5 See Schaef. dMelet. p. 84; Kiihner, IL., 
vmepreptagevw, Rom. y. 20; 2 Cor. vii. 4. p. 330. 

2 See Bernhardy, p. 139. ® Luther, Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, 


3 Estius. Flatt, Holzhausen, Meier, Olshausen. 


430 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


rh éxxa. the outward domain in which God is to be praised, and év Xprorg the 
spiritual sphere in which this ascription of praise is to take place ; for not 
outside of Christ, but in Christ—as the specific element of faith, in which 
the pious life-activity of the Christian moves—does he praise God. Comp. 
vv. 5, 20. Allied, but not identical (in opposition to Grotius and others), is 
the conception dia Xpiorod, Rom. i. 8, vil. 25. Both conceptions : Col. iii. 
17. — ele racac tac yevedc K.7T.A.] unto all generations of the world-age of world- 
ages.! This cumulation of the expressions is solemn. The aidy tév aiévev 
denotes the eternal world-period beginning with the Parousia, the aiay péAdwv, 
conceived of as the superlativum, ‘‘ superlative,” of all world-periods,’ in so 
far as it, just as the last and eternal one, transcends all other aidveg since 
the beginning of the world. Comp. Dan. vii. 18; 3 Esdr. iv. 38. The 
plural expression of aidvec tov aidvev’ (Gal. i. 5; Phil. iv. 20, al.) is not 
different as to the thing intended, but is so as to the conception ; since in 
it the Messianic period, although equally thought of (comp. also on Luke i. 
50) as the superlative of all the aidvec, is not thought of in its wnity with- 
out distinction, but as a continuous series of several periods : consequently 
not asa single totality, as in the case of 6 aiév, but according to the several 
constituent parts, which collectively form the whole of the Messianic eter- 
nity,—in short, not as the time of times, asin our passage, but as the times of 
times. [See Note XXXV., p. 433.] By etc racac rac yevedc x.7.A. the thought is 
expressed, that the indicated ascription of praise to God will extend to all the 
generations of the (nigh) Messianic world-period, #.e., that this ascription of 
praise in the church is to endure not only up to the Parousia, but then also 
ever onward from generation to generation in the Messianic aeon,—conse- 
quently to last not merely é¢ rd zapév, ‘‘ for the present,” but also é¢ 76 aiduor, 
‘‘forever.” On yeved, generation (three of which about = 100 years), comp. 
Acts xiv. 16, and the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha in Schleusner’s 
Thes.; from Greek writers, in Wessel.* The designation of the successive 
time-spaces of the everlasting Messianic aiév by yeveai, is derived from the 
lapse of time in the pre-Messianic world-period—in which with the chang- 
ing generations one age of man ever succeeds another—by virtue of a cer- 
tain anthropological mode of regarding eternity. Of the church, however, 
it is presupposed that she herself (and so, too, will it be with her praising 
of God) endures on into the everlasting aiév, but not that she has still a very 
long temporal duration before the Parousia, according to which de Wette 
has here found a contradiction to the apostle’s expectation elsewhere of the 
nearness of the Parousia. The Parousia brings for the éxxAjoia not the end, 
but the consummation. Hofmann,‘ retaining xai before év Xp. ’I. (see the 
critical remarks), would have ei¢ rdoac rac yevedc x.7.2.,t0 belong only to év 
Xp. ’I., and not to év rq éxkAnoia ; for only at present and upon earth does 
the glorification of God take place in the church, but in Christ it takes place 
eternally. Incorrectly, because even the temporal glorification does not 


1“ aidves, periodi oeconomiae divinaeab  Bengel. 
una quasi scena ad aliam decurrentes,”’ 2 Winer, p. 220. 
‘periods of the divine economy extending, 3 Ad Diod. I. 24. 
as it were, from one scene to another,” 4 Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 127. 


NOTES. 431 


take place otherwise than éy Xpior@ ’Inoov, consequently the cai would have 
had its logical position only after Xpioré "Incov. If kai were genuine, it 
would not be equivalent to dé, as would need to be assumed on Hofmann’s 
view, but it would be et quidem, idque, ‘‘ and indeed,” ‘‘and that too,” how- 
ever superfluous and cumbrous such a stress laid on it might be. Accord- 
ing to Baur, p. 433, there meets us again here the Gnostic idea of the aidvec, 
in accordance with which they, ‘‘as the yevea? tov aidvog tov aidvwr, are 
the aeons in the sense, in which God Himself, as the extra-temporal unity 
of time, individualizes Himself in the aeons as the elements of self-unfold- 
ing time.” In this way one may over-urge Gnosticism. 


Norrs py AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XXIX. Ver. 7. didkovoc. 


“The meanings of dvaxovoc and drnpétne are much more nearly allied ; they do 
in fact continuously run into one another, and there are a multitude of occa- 
sions on which they might be promiscuously used ; the more official character 
of the tmypétn¢e is the point in which the distinction between them resides.”’ 
Trench’s Synonyms of the N. T., Second Series, p. 57. 


XXX. Ver. 10. dud tig éxxAnoiac. 


Eadie develops this thought with great eloquence : ‘‘ The church teaches the 
angelic hosts. They have seen much of God’s working—many a sun lighted 
up, and many a world launched into its orbit. They have been delighted with 
the solution of many a problem and the development of many a mystery. But 
in the proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles, with its strange preparations ; 
various agencies and stupendous effects—involving the origination and extine- 
tion of Judaism, the Incarnation and the Atonement, the manger and the cross, 
the spread of the Greek language and the triumph of the Roman arms, ‘these 
principalities and powers in heavenly places’ beheld with rapture other and 
brighter phases of a wisdom which had often dazzled them by its brilliant 
and profound versatility, and surprised and entranced them by the infinite ful- 
ness of the love which prompts it, and of the power which itself directs and 
controls. The events that have transpired in the church on earth are the 
means of augmenting the information of those pure and exalted beings who 
encircle the throne of God. 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. i, 12.’’ 


XXXI. Ver. 15. mdoa rarpid k.T.A. 


The exact meaning of this passage is, that as every clan or family bears the 
name of its ancestor (as, for example, in modern times Luther and Washington 
are the names of more remote ancestors of the individuals so well known to the 
world), so every patria is simply a perpetuation of the name of the pater 
whence it ultimately springs. Wherever the patria is found its paternity is at 
once indicated. If we find those who are members of a patria, ‘‘they lose the 
cold and official name of subjects in the familiar and endearing appellation of 
sons, and they are united to one another not dimly and unconsciously, as dif- 


432 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

/ 
ferent products of the same divine workmanship, but they merge into one fam- 
ily—‘all they are brethren.’ Every tazpia must surely possess unbounded con- 
fidence in the benignity and protection of the taryjp, and to Him, therefore, 
the prayer of the apostle is directed” (Eadie). 


XXXII. Ver. 16. tov gow avPpwror. (1). 


The higher powers of the unregenerate man are here regarded by Meyer as 
not entirely dead with respect to spiritual things; they are only impaired, 
directed to the good, but without the Holy Spirit too weak to effect anything. 
Cf. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. This is perfectly consistent with Meyer’s interpreta- 
tion of chap. ii. 1, which see, and, on the other side, Note XVI., p. 398seq. To 
the student of church history the name of a serious error in the early church 
will be readily suggested. Yet Dr. Riddle is right in maintaining that Dr. 
Hodge goes too far in classifying all interpretations that insist upon a dis- 
tinction between ‘‘the inner man’’ and ‘the new man,’’ as semi-Pelagian, 
‘The inner man”’ is the sphere in which ‘‘the new man” is developed, ‘‘ the 
central point of the human personality” (Harless, Chr. Ethics, p. 195), ‘* not 
the pure in antithesis to the impure, but only that in the regenerate man which 
daily experiences renewal . . . In antithesis to the externality of the worldly 
life, it is the inner man upon which the grace of God lays hold, the inner man 
which daily is renewed while the outward man perishes’ (Harless on Eph. iii. 
16). Hence in its application, as here, it may often by synecdoche be almost 
identical with ‘‘ the new man.’’ Elsewhere 6 éow (éow%ev) dvOpwroc certainly 
designates the regenerate internal nature of man (2 Cor. iv. 16 ; Eph. iii. 16 ; 
cf. 1 Pet. iii. 4), although even there not in itself, but only in respect of the 
connection’’ (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychology, p. 446). So Ellicott, Eadie, Braune. 


XXXII. Ver. 16. 7év éow avfpwrov. (2). 


The relation of the expression to the Platonic philosophy is well indicated by 
Cremer (Lexicon, p. 104 sq.): ‘‘This Platonic reflection, with its identification 
of the intellectual and moral nature, may be regarded as the expression, in 
Platonic form, of a presentiment of the truth, such as readily dawns on the 
human mind ; but we must not, therefore, suppose that St. Paul’s expression 
had this basis—it was the outcome rather of his own moral and religious ex- 
perience in its harmony with the words of divine revelation,”’ 


XXXIV. Ver. 18. év ayary. 


Westcott and Hort attach this clause to the preceding verse. As to Meyer’s 
interpretation ; ‘‘ The absence of the article is unduly pressed, both by Meyer 
(in amando), and Harl. (subjective love, man’s love to Christ), such omissions in 
the case of abstract nouns, especially when preceded by prepositions, being 
not uncommon in the N. T., see Winer's Gr. § 19. 1, p. 109, and comp. Middle- 
ton, Gr. Art. vi. 1, p. 98 (ed. Rose).” (Ellicott). So Eadie, in almost the same 
words, who adds: ‘‘ But the entire context proves that the love referred to is 
the grace of love. One would have expected a genitive of possession, if aydary 
were not predicated of the persons themselves—if it were not a feeling in their 
hearts. It is a clumsy and equivocal exegesis to comprise under the term both 


NOTES. 433 


Christ’s love to us and our love to Christ. Nor can we accede to Meyer, who 
seems to restrict it to brother-love ; for if it be the grace of love which is here 
specified, then it is love to Christ and to every creature that bears His image. 
. . . This love is the root and foundation of Christian character, as all ad- 
vancement is connected with its existence and exercise. ‘He prayeth well 
whe loveth well.’ Love is the fundamental grace.’’ Yet only as the fruit of 
faith, as the preceding verse shows. 


XXXV. Ver. 21. tov aidvoc tév aidvur. 


«‘The addition of the genitive strengthens the idea. It is a periphrasis for 
the superlative, Matthiae, § 430” (Cremer). ‘‘ Harless finds a difference between 
the two expressions ai@vec TOv aidverv and aidy Tdv aidver, the former being 
rather exlensive, and conveying the idea of ravtec¢ aidvec, the latter being rather 
intensive, and more strictly in accordance with the Hebrew superlative. This is 
ingenious, but apparently of doubtful application, as in actual practice the dif- 
ference between the two expressions is hardly appreciable’’ (Ellicott). ‘* Eter- 
nity is conceived as containing ages, just as our ‘age’ contains years ; and 
then those ages are thought of as made up, like ours, of generations. Like the 
similar expression aidvec Tv aidvwr, it is used by a transfer of what we know 
in time, to express imperfectly and indeed improperly the idea of eternity”’ 
(Alford). 


28 


434 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 6. After mdow Elz. has, with min. Chrys. Theodoret, tuiv ; for which 
DEFGkKLIand many min., also several vss. and Fathers, read 7juiv. So 
Griesb. and Scholz. But neither pronoun is present in A BC Sand several 
min. vss. and Fathers. The pronouns are exegetic additions, designed to se- 
cure the reference of ravTwr, TavTwr, Tdowv to the Christians. — Ver. 7. The ar- 
ticle of ydépic is wanting in B D* F G L, Dam. min. Deleted by Lachm. 
[Treg.] But it was more easily absorbed through the preceding H than 
brought in through writing it twice ; and in ils favor tell the readings 7 yapuic¢ 
abt in C** 10, 31, Cyr., and 7 ydapec atrov in Aeth., in which the article is 
glossed. — Ver. 8. Before édwxe Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. have xai, which has 
against it A C** D* E F G 8$* 17, Copt. Slav. ant. Vulg. It. and several Latin 
Fathers, and hence is suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. [and 
Tisch.] But considerable witnesses still remain in favor of xai ; and since the 
LXX. does not have it at Ps. Ixviii. 19, the omission seems to have taken place 
in accordance with the LXX. — Ver. 9. After xaréBy Elz. has rparov, in opposi- 
tion to decisive witnesses, although defended by Reiche. A more precisely 
defining addition, as is also yépy in Elz. after xavér. Less weighty authority, 
it is true, testifies against this wépy (hence it is retained not only by Reiche, 
but also by Lachm. Scholz, Riick. [Hof. Braune, West. and Hort]), but it betrays 
itself asa glossing product of the very old explanation of the descent into 
hell, in order to designate the place whither Christ descended as subterranean. 
—Ver. 15. Instead of 6 Xpioréc, A BC 8* min. Fathers have merely Xpuoréc. 
So Lachm. and Tisch. [Treg. and West. and Hort]. To be preferred, on ac- 
count of the oldest ms. attestation. — Ver. 16. wépovc] A C, 14, 66 (on margin), 
Syr. Arr, Copt. Arm. Vulg. and several Fathers have péAovc, which, after Grot. 
Mill, and Bengel, is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Riick. (not 
Lachm). An interpretation in accordance with the context. G has pérpouc, 
which likewise testifies in favor of pépove. — Ver. 17. Aoura] is wanting with 
AB D* FG &, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Clem. Cyr. and Lat. Fathers. 
Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riick. [Tisch. Treg. West. and 
Hort]. But how naturally might it be omitted, since Paul was speaking to 
Gentiles who were now Christians, and upon a comparison with 1 Thess. iv. 5! 
—Ver. 18. éoxoricuévor] Lachm. Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], read éoxotwpé- 
vot, following AB &, Ath. Rightly ; the current form was brought in, — Ver. 
26. The article before rapopy., deleted by Lachm. ['Treg. West. and Hort.], is 
wanting in A B &*, and is more likely to have been added on account of the 
definite reference in the text, than to have been omitted. — Ver. 27. ure] All 
uncials have zydé On that account, even apart from the greater linguistic 
probability, rightly approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch, Scholz, 
Riick. and Harless. — Ver. 28. 10 dyafov taic yepoiv] Many variations, among 
which rai¢ idiawe yepoi 76 ayafév (so Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.] and Riick.) is by far 
the best attested reading (A D E F G §* min. Ar. pol. Copt. Sahid. Aeth, Arm. 


CHAP. Iv., I. : 435 


oC 


Vulg. It. Basil, Epiph. Naz. Jer. Aug. Pel.). The shortest readings are : merely 
Td ayafdév with Clem., and merely raic yepoiv with Tertull. Harless (comp. 
Mill) conjectures that the latter is the original form, and that 1 Cor. iv. 12, Gal. 
v. 10 gave occasion to glosses. But only 1 Cor. iv. 12 is here parallel, because 
Gal. vi. 10 does not speak of literal labor. There would hence be more war- 
rant for regarding the simple 76 dya#év in Clement as original, But in opposi- 
tion to this, it may be urged that raic yepoiv is wanting in no other witness, 
and is in the highest degree appropriate to the connection ; whereas 70 ayafov, 
since the mention is of manual labor, might easily appear inappropriate. The 
true reading accordingly I hold to be raic¢ yepot rd dyabov, which remains, if we 
delete idiacc in Lachm., as an addition from 1 Cor. iv. 12. And with this agree 
also B &** Amiat. Ambrosiast., which actually read rai¢ yepol To ayahov [West. 
and Hort : rai¢ yepoiv 76 ayabdbv. | —Ver. 29. ypeiac] D* E* FG, 46, Arm. in sever- 
al codd. of Vulg., codd. of It., Lat. codd. in Jer. and several Fathers : 
miorewc. An interpretation.— Ver. 32. dé] is wanting, no doubt, in B 
and min. Clar. Germ. Clem. Dam. Oec., and is deleted by Lachm., but was 
easily dropped out through the last syllable of yivecbe. Omitted, it was then 
in accordance with v. 1 made up for, in many witnesses, by odv (D* F G, lect. 
6, 14, codd. of It.). — tuiv] Lachm. : jyiv, after B** D E K L, min. Syr. utr. Ar. 
pol. Sahid. Arm. Chrys. in comm., Theodoret, Theophylact. But 7juiv appears 
an alteration in accordance with v. 2 ; where, no doubt, the variations jude and 
duov are found, but in opposition to so decisive a preponderance of witnesses 
reading jude and fav, that dude and juav only become an evidence for the 
originality of our div. 


ContENTs.—The paraenetic portion of the Epistle begins with the general 
exhortation to the readers to live worthily of their vocation, whereupon, es- 
pecially, mutual loving forbearance and the preservation of Christian unity 
are brought prominently forward (vv. 1-3). Thereon follows, vv. 4-16, a 
detailed exhibition of those relations, which render the preservation of 
Christian unity a duty, namely—(q) that there is one body, one Spirit, etc., 
vv. 4-6. Further, (%) that to every individual is grace given in the measure 
in which Christ apportions His gift, vv. 7-10. And (ce) that Christ has giv- 
en the different teachers, until all should have attained to unity of the faith 
and of knowledge, in order that dependence on false teaching may cease, 
and, on the other hand, the truth may be acknowledged in love, and thus 
all may grow in relation to Christ the head, from whom the whole church, 
the body, accomplishes in love its organic development to perfection, vv. 
11-16. Hereupon the discourse returns to the form of exhortation, namely, 
that they no longer walk after a Gentile manner (vv. 17-19). They had, in- 
deed, been quite otherwise taught, namely so, as it is truth in Jesus, that 
they should lay aside the old man, and, on the other hand, should be re- 
newed in their mind and should put on the new man (vv. 20-24). Lastly, 
thus grounded, there follow the special exhortations no longer to lie, but to 
speak the truth ; not to sin in anger, etc.; no longer to steal, but to work, 
etc.; to hold no bad discourse, but, etc.; not to be bitter, passionate, 
etc., but kind, compassionate, forgiving (vv. 25-82). 

Ver. 1. See on vy. 1-6, Winzer, Commentat., Lips. 1839. — rapaxara| 


436 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


‘“ Parte doctrinae absoluta venit, ut solet, ad adhortationes,” ‘‘after the doc- 
trinal portion is finished, he comes, according to his custom, to exhortations,” 
Grotius. No doubt, there presently begins again at ver. 4 a doctrinal ex- 
position as far as ver. 16, but itis swbservient to the paraenesis, and is itself 
pervaded by the paraenetic element (vv. 14, 15). —ovv] deduces the exhor- 
tation from the immediately preceding ii. 21. For a walk in keeping with 
the vocation, through which one belongs to the church, is what is practical- 
ly in keeping with the praise of God in the church. The suitableness of 
this nearest reference gives it the preference over the more vague ordinary 
view, that civ draws its inference from the whole contents of the first three 
chapters. Comp. on Rom. xii. 1.—?y 6 déopuoc év xvp.] gives to the rapa- 
Kado obv a touching force ‘‘ad excitandum affectum, quo sit efficacior exhor- 
tatio,” ‘‘for the purpose of exciting emotion, whereby his exhortation might 
be the more efficacious,” Estius ; comp. Calvin. Similarly Ignat. Tradl. 12: 
mapakarei buac Ta Seoud pov, & évexev’Inoov Xpiotov repipépw, ‘‘ my chains which 
I bear for the sake of Jesus Christ beseech you.” But all that has been 
said about exciting sympathetic feeling,’ cheering obedience,” and the like, 
is quite inappropriate, since it was just in his sufferings that Paul was 
conscious of all his dignity with holy pride (comp. iii. 13 and on Gal. vi. 
17). So here, too, in the zapaxadé, the reader was to be affected by the 
consciousness of the dignity and greatness of the martyr who utters it. Ac- 
cording to others, Paul wishes to present himself as an example.* In that 
case he must at least have written : tapuxadé obv éyo 6 déou, év kup. Kal bwag 
akiwe TepiT. K.T.A. —év kvpiw| does not belong to rapaxadd,* but to 6 déopuoc, 
beside which it stands, and which alone needs its significant reference ; 
comp. lii. 1; Phil. i. 13. Paul was the prisoner in the Lord (the article as 
iii. 1), for he did not endure a captivity having its ground apart from Christ, 
—such as one suffers who for any other reason is placed in bonds,—but in 
Christ his being bound had its causal basis, just because he was bearing the 
chains for Christ’s sake ; without, however, év kupiw signifying ‘‘ for Christ’s 
sake” (comp. on Gal. i. 24), as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many would 
have it. Comp. rather, ovvepyoc év Xpiot@, ayarnroc év Kupiw, Oéxiwoc év Xpior@, 
éxAextoc év Kvpiw, Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 9, 10,13, a7. It gives to the déoycoc its spe- 
cific character, by which therefore the captivity was essentially distinguished 
from any other. — év kupiw| is annexed without an article, because it is blend- 
ed with 6 décyuoc into a unity of conception. The genitive designation, ili. 
1, expresses the same thing, but otherwise conceived of. — d&iwe mepitarqjoa 
x.7.4.| @.e., to lead such a life-walk as is appropriate to the call to the Messi- 
anic kingdom issued to you (at your conversion), ‘ne sint tanta gratia indig- 
ni,” ‘‘ lest they be unworthy of such grace,” Calvin. Comp. Phil. i. 27 ; 


1 Koppe and older expositors. Christ’s sake more than a king does in his 
2“Ut Paulum obsequio exhilararent,” diadem.”’ 
“That they should delight Paul by their 4 Harless, Olshausen ; comp. also Koppe. 
obedience,”’ Bengel. 5 Semler, Koppe with hesitation; Zan- 


> Theodoret aptly remarks: tots 6a tov chius already suggested, but did not ap- 
Xprotov decpots évaBpvverar waddov 7 BactAreis prove it. 
diadjpart, “He delights in his bonds for 


CHAP. IV., 2. 43% 


Col. i. 10; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Thess. 1. 11; Matt. iii. 8; Rom. xvi. 2; Bern- 
hardy, p. 140. The future possession of the kingdom, forsooth, is destined 
only for those whose ethical frame is renewed and sanctified by the Holy 
Spirit. See vv. 21. ff., 30; Rom. viii. 4 ff., xiv. 17; Gal. v. 21 f.; 1 Cor. 
vi. 9 f., al. —7c] as at i. 6; and see on 2 Cor. i. 4. Attracted instead of 
qv. Yet Paul might have written 7, 2 Tim. i. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 20. 

Ver. 2. Mera do. rarevvogp. x. tpad7.| the characteristic dispositions ac- 
companying this repiuraryoa ; see Winer, p. 337, and with regard to raayc, 
oni. 8 ; it belongs to doth substantives. On the subject-matter, comp. Matt. 
xi. 29 ; Col. iii. 12. . The opposite of humility: ta iwy2a gpovetv, Rom. xii. 
16, xi. 20 ; 1 Tim. vi. 17; doxeiy eivai t, Gal. vi. 3. Onthe notion of rpaédryc, 
gentleness, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 140. [See Note XXXVI., p. 483 seq. ] — 
pera waxpo0.| is attached by Calvin, Estius, Zeltner, Calixtus, Baumgarten, 
Michaclis, Zachariae, Riickert, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, to the fol- 
lowing aveyéuevor. But the very repetition of the preposition, to which 
appeal is made, most naturally points backwards, so that wera waxpof. appears 
as parallel to pera m. tarervodp. k. tpadt., inasmuch, namely, as Paul makes 
the general be followed by the special, and then gives to the latter the elu- 
cidation aveyduevor x.7.A. Besides, pera paxpod., if it belonged to aveyéu., 
would have an undue emphasis, since without long-suffering the avéyecba 
adaqrwy Would not exist at all; Col. ii1.12f. Bengel and Matthies, follow- 
ing Theodoret and Oecumenius, have attached the whole pera 7. tar. x. 
mpaét., meta paxpoO. to aveyouevor. But in this way we lose the gradual tran- 
sition from the general agiwc¢ mepurat. 7. xa. to the special aveydou. adaga., which 
under our construction is very naturally brought about. —aveydou. adAp2. év 
ayaryn| The reciprocal forbearance in (ethical habit) love (comp. Rom. xv. 1 ; 
Gal. vi. 2) is the practical expression of the paxpofuuia. Comp. Col. iii. 13. 
It consists in the fact that we ‘‘aliorum infirmitates aequo animo ferimus, 
nec ob ea, quae nobis in proximo displicent, ab ejus amicitia recedimus, sed 
personam constanter amamus, etsi vitia in odio habeamus,” ‘‘ bear the infir- 
mities of others with patience, and do not withdraw from his friendship 
because of those things in our neighbor that displease, but constantly love 
his person, even though we have his vices in hatred,” Calovius. The nominative 
of the participle (comp. Col. i. 10) is put cara 7d vootuevor, because the logical 
subject of afiw¢ repirar., ver. 1, is bueic.1 Ignoring this familiar construction, 
Heinsius, Knatchbull, and Homberg have placed a full stop after ver. 1, and 
then supplied estote, ‘‘be ye,” to the participles—a course which would only 
be admissible if, as in Rom. xii. 9, this concise, pregnant mode of expres- 
sion were implied in the context. —év aydry] belongs to the preced- 
ing. On the thing itself, comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4. Lachmann, Holzhausen, 
and Olshausen attach it to orovdafovrec. The reason given by Olshausen, 
that, as the paxpo?. is only a form of expression of love, év aydéry could 
not belong to what precedes, would be set aside, even if it were in 
itself valid, by the correct separation of era waxpof. from daveydu. And ave- 
x6u. arAnr., taken alone, renders the discourse simply abrupt. How harmo- 


1 See on iii. 18; comp. on 2 Cor. i. 7, and Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 970. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


nious is the structure, when both participial clauses begin with the partici- 
ple and close with the definitions attached by év, in which definitions there 
is opened up the whole ethical domain (Jove and peace) to which the before- 
named special virtues belong (1 Cor. xiii.) ! 

Ver. 3. Parallel of aveyéuevor x.7.2., which is characterized as respects the 
effort by which it must be upheld. — rjv évéryra tov rvetparoc] The rvgipa is 
not the human spirit, so that in general animi studiorumque consensus, ‘* har- 
mony of mind and desires” is meant,’ but, as is shown from ver. 4, and is in 
itself clear from the exhortation to the Christian life (ver. 1), the Holy Spirit, 
instead of which we have not, with de Wette and Schenkel, to understand 
the Christian spirit of the community ; the N. T. knows not this modern 
notion, but knows only the Holy Spirit of God, as that which rules in the 
church (ii. 22), and upholds and develops its specific life, so that the latter 
has precisely in the kowovia tov mvetuarog (Phil. ii. 1 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 18) its 
common source and support. Rightly already Chrysostom (rd rvevpa rove 
yévet kat tpdrore Stadopéie SteotyKérac évoi, ‘* the Spirit unites those separated in 
race and in ways of difference”) and his successors, Beza, Calovius, Bengel, 
and others, including Harless, Winzer, Bleek, and Ch. F. Fritzsche :? the 
Comp. Phil. i. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 13; John 
And this unity is the identity of faith, of love, of sentiment, of 
hope, etc., in the different subjects who are moved by the Spirit. —év ro 
ourdéicuw TIC elphvyc] is attached by Lachmann to what follows, whereby the 
parallelism with the preceding participial clause is destroyed. And after the 
definition by év 76 cvvdécuw rie eip. being prefixed, several of the following 
elements of unity would not be appropriate, since even without the bond of 
peace there is one Lord, one baptism, one God and Father. — éy is ordinarily 
taken as instrumental: through the bond of peace. In opposition to the par- 
allelism with év aydéry 3 and through the unity of the Spirit the bond of 
peace is preserved, not the converse. Hence : in the bond of peace, by which 
is denoted the ethical relation, in which they are to preserve the unity of the 
Spirit, namely, while peace one towards another must be the bond, which is to 
envelope them. rie eipivyc, accordingly, is genitive of apposition. Comp. cbv- 
decuoe evvoiag Kai gidiac, ‘a bond of good will and friendship,” Plut. Wwm. 
6 ; Acts vill. 23 ; Isa. lviii. 6. Others : ‘‘vinculum, quo paz retinetur,” ‘a 
bond whereby peace is maintained,” 4and thisis held to be love. Appeal is 
made to Col. iii. 14, and to the parallel with év dyaéry. But, in Col. Le., 
love in fact is expressly named, and designated as civdecuoc tie Tedetoryroc ; 
while justice is done to the parallel with év aydzy by our interpretation also, 


unity, which the Spirit produces. 
xvi. 21. 


? Ambrosiaster, Artselm, Erasmus, Calvin, 
Piscator, Estius, Wolf, Koppe, and many, 
including Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
tlickert, according to whom Paul did not 
write tov vods, because he derives the unity 
of the spirit from the Divine Spirit. 

* Nova opp. acad. p. 244. 

°’ What de Wette observes in opposition 
to this view—that the peacefulness, to 
which the readers are exlsorted, is to pre- 


serve the unity of the Spirit by the fact that 
it holds all enveloped with the bond of 
peace—is not sufficient ; since this peace- 
fulness, which encircles all with the bond 
of peace, at any rate presupposes the unity 
of the Spirit. Where there is dispeace, this 
unity is already wanting. 

4 Bengel ; so Theophylact, Calovius, and 
others, including Riickert, Meier, Harless, 
Winzer. 


CHAP? IV.,.4; 5. 439 


and it was at any rate most natural for the reader to understand under the 
the bond of peace peace itself, conceived of as a bond. Expositors would not 
have sought for another explanation, had they not taken év as instrumental, 
in which case the difficulty obtruded itself, that the unity of the Spirit is not 
preserved by means of peace, but peace by means of the unity of the Spirit. 
That, moreover, no inference may be drawn from ver. 3 as to divisions pre- 
vailing in the church, Bengel has already rightly observed : ‘‘etiam ubi 
nulla fissura est, monitis opus est,” ‘‘even where there is no sundrance, 
there is need of admonitions.”” And particularly was such exhortation nat- 
ural for the apostle, even in the absence of special occasion, considering the 
many saddening experiences which he had met with elsewhere on this point! 

Ver. 4, on to ver. 6. Objective relations of unity, to which the non-compli- 
ance with what is demanded in ver. 3 would be contradictory,’ and which 
are consequently meant to incite towards compliance,—but without yap,? 
which gives greater animation to the discourse. The simpie éor/is to be sup- 
plied (comp. 1 Cor. x. 17); for the discourse is not hortatory, as it is taken 
to be by Pelagius, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Calvin, Camerarius, Estius, 
Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Hofmann,* with which vv. 
5 and 6 would not be in accord ; for the same reason also the words are not 
to be attached appositionally to crovdafovrec,* but they are independent and 
purely assertive : there is one body and one Spirit. On év coua, by which the 
totality of Christians as corpus (Christi) mysticum, ‘* Christ’s mystical body” 
is meant, comp. ii. 16 ; Rom. xii. 5 ; 1 Cor. x. 17, xii. 13; on & aveiya, 
which is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of that corpus mysticum, ‘‘ mystical 
body,” ii. 18; 1 Cor. xii. 18. The explanation : ‘one body and one soul” 
(‘‘quasi diceret, nos penitus corpore et anima, non ex parte duntaxat, 
debere esse unitos,” ‘‘as though he said that we ought to be completely united 
in body and soul, and not only partially,” Calvin), is excluded, as at vari- 
ance with the context, by the specifically Christian character of the other 
elements, and rendered impossible by the correct supplying of éori (not esse 
debetis, ‘‘ ye ought to be”). — xaboc kat éxAf0. x.7.A.] with which unity (é o. 
x. vy wv.) the relation also of your calling is in keeping (comp. Col. iii. 15), 
which took place by the fact that (év instrumental, see on Gal. i. 6) one 
hope (namely, that of the eternal Messianic bliss) was communicated to you ; 
for all in fact were called by God to this very Messianic ocwrypia (Phil. ii. 
14).— rhe KAgjo. juev| genitive, as at i. 18. Bengel, we may add, aptly re- 
marks : ‘‘Spiritus est arrhabo, atque ideo cum ejus mentione conjungitur 
spes haereditatis,” ‘‘ The spirit is the seal, and therefore together with His 
mention, is joined the hope of inheritance.” ® 

Ver, 5. Continuation. There are not several Lords, but One, who is Lord 


1 These set forth—(1) the church itself con- _ this entire unity—one God and Father, etc., 
stituted on the footing of unity—one body, ver. 6. Observe the threefold tripartite ar- 
one Spirit, one blessed consummation, ver. rangement. 


4; (2) means, by which the constitution of it as 2 Comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Exe. Il. p. 277. 
an unity is produced and preserved—one 3 Schrifibew. I. 2, p. 128. 
Lord, one faith, one baptism, ver. 5; (8) 4 Bleek. 


the supreme ruler, disposer, and sustainer of 5 Comp. also Clem. Cov. I. 46. 


44.0) THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


of all believers, even Christ ; not several kinds of faith, but one faith, inas- 
much as all place their confidence upon the atoning death of Christ, on 
account of which they are justified and obtain salvation (Rom. iii. 23 ff.); 
not several kinds of baptism, but one baptism, namely, into Christ (Rom, vi. 
3; Gal. iii. 27; Acts x. 48, xix. 5). —eic xbpioc at the head ; because pia 
«lotic and the év Bdxtiua accomplished in the case of those who have be- 
come believers are consequentia, ‘‘ consequences,” of ei¢ xbpioc. — To make of 
xiortc the doctrine of the faith,’ is at variance with linguistic usage ; comp. 
on Gal. i. 23; Rom.i. 5. [See Note XXXVIL., p. 484.] The évérie ri7¢ riotews 
is here represented as present, but in ver. 13as future. Both with justice; in- 
asmuch as here the Christian faith in the narrower sense is intended, the jides 
salvifica, ‘‘ saving faith,” which in ail Christians was essentially the same, 
while at ver. 13 it is the Christian faith in the wider sense, within the com- 
pass of which there was diversity of convictions (as respects the validity of 
the law, the resurrection, veneration of angels, asceticism, partaking of 
flesh offered to idols, and other matters). — Of the Lord’s Supper, the unity 
of which might likewise appear as a suitable element in the connection (1 
Cor. x. 17), Paul does not make mention : according to Calovius, because it 
was comprehended ‘uno baptismatis sacramento ex paritatis ratione,” ‘in 
the one sacrament of baptism, because of equality; according to Harless, 
because Paul was mentioning only the fundamental conditions of the Chris- 
tian fellowship, as they exist from the outset, at the first entrance upon it ; 
according to Olshausen, because the specific act of the Supper, the partak- 
ing (rather, the communien, 1 Cor. x. 16) of Christ, is included in éei¢ Kbpzog, 
pia riorwe ; according to de Wette, because it was less a something condi- 
tioning the unity, than something representing this unity itself.? But, in 
opposition to Calovius and Olshausen, it may be urged that, if Paul had 
adopted the synecdochic point of view in the selection, he would not have 
needed to mention x/cric, since baptism presupposes faith ; in opposition to 
Harless, that the fundamental conditions of the Christian communion’ which 
Paul mentions are such, not specially for the beginning of it, but for its 
whole duration ; in opposition to de Wette, finally, that the Lord’s Supper 
is, precisely as a representation of the unity, at the same time a powerful 
ethical incitement thereto, and hence would have been admirably appropriate 
in the series of points adduced. The ground of its not being mentioned is 
rather to be sought in the fact that the adducing of the Lord’s Supper 
would have disturbed the threefold triad of the elements adduced, and have 
broken through the whole rhythm of the passage. And the holy meal 
might the more easily remain unmentioned, because it was at that time not 
yet an observance subsisting by itself, but was combined with the common 
meals ; hence, doubtless, in a context, where the Lord’s Supper is spoken of, 
the cic aptoc (1 Cor. x. 17) is brought forward as a symbol of the unity of 
Christians, but in another context the thought év deixvov kupiov or pla tTpdrela 


1 Grotius, Zachariae, and others. would not stand in the way of the varied 

2 Most mistakenly of all, Schenkel holds development of arite. In that case, doubt- 
that Paul did not regard a uniform obser- Jess, Paul would have done well not to 
vance of the Supper as necessary, and mention baptism either. 


CHAP. Iv., 6. 441 
ruptov—because the Supper was not something subsisting alone like baptism, 
which as the constituent element of Christian standing could not remain un- 
mentioned—did not so necessarily suggest itself. [See Note XXXVIIL., 
p. 484. | 

Ver. 6. Observe the climactic advance in vv. 4-6: the Church, Christ, 
God ;—and at the same time the climax in the divine Triad : Spirit, Lord, 
Father. Only the dominion of the Father is the absolute one, that of the 
Son is the derived, conferred, obtained (Phil. ii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff., iii. 
23, al., 1 in which He also disposes of the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 18).? — révrwr] 
2.€., of all believers, as those who have the viofecia (i. 5 ; Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. 
ili. 26, iv. 5), so that God is their God and Father. Holzhausen erroneously 
(seeing that the context treats of the Christian évérnc) thinks that all men 
are intended. Not even the spiritually dead members of the church are in- 
cluded,* as results from the sequel indicated by dva4 and év, since they have 
not the Spirit and belong not to Christ (Rom. viii. 9), but are aloof from 
connection with Him and stand outside of grace (Gal. v. 4 f.; John xv. 2, 
6), consequently have no share in the body of Christ (i. 23) and in the living 
temple of God (ii. 22 f.). —6 éxt rdvtov x.t.4.] The relation of the Oed¢ xai 
matyp tavrwv to the rac in threefold manner. Comp. Rom. xi. 36, where, 
however, the prepositions define the subject, not, as here, the object. 
Tavtov, TavTwv, and wacw are equally to be taken as masculine, because the 
preceding zavrwv was masculine, and because the discourse continues in ver. 7 
Wrongly, there- 
fore, many * have taken the first two as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zachariae, 
Koppe, e al., give the second point alone as neuter, and Matthies, on the 
other hand, explains all three elements of the relation of God to the world 
and mankind, consequently as neuter. —ézi tavtwr] éxave ravtwv, ‘above 


with évi dé éxaoTw yudv, Wherein the zavrec are individualized. 


all,” Chrysostom ; rv deororeiav onuaive:, ‘‘ He indicates absolute sway,” 
Theodoret.* After this relation of transcendence there follows, in dua. . . 
mao, that of immanence.— dia rdvrwr| cannot, since the ravrec are the 
Christians and the relation of God to what is Christian is characterized, 
apply either to the creation,® so that we should have to think of the all- 
penetrating creative power of God, or to providence;™ but the charismatic 
presence of God by means of the Holy Spirit, pervading and ruling all Chris- 
tians,. is meant. See also ver. 7, and comp. 1 Cor. xii. 6. The distinc- 
tion from the following év raow lies not in the thing itself, since both ele- 
ments denote the immanent ruling of God by virtue of His Spirit, but 
in the form of conception, since with év the relation is conceived of as 
operative indwelling, and with did as operative movement throughout all 
Christian hearts." According to Harless, the thought expressed in dia ravTwv 


1Comp. Ernesti. Ursprung da. Siinde, I. p. 
194 ff. 

2See also Gess, von der Person Christi, 
1st ed., p. 158 ff. 

3 In opposition to Miinchmeyer. 

4Including Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, 
Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius. 

5 Comp. Rom. ix. 5. See Wessel, ad Di- 


odor. xiii. 14; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 474 ; 
Winer, p. 335. 

6 Estius, Wolf, and others. 

7 Chrysostom and his successors ; Beza, 
Grotius: ‘“‘per omnes diffundit providam 
suam gubernationem,” ‘‘through all He 
diffuses his provident governance.” 

®Deus enim Spiritu sanctificationis 


442 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

is, that God as head works through the members. But of the conception of 
the head and the members there is absolutely nothing in the context 5 
further, though mention is made of God as Father, it is not the Father, 
but Christ, that is Head of the members ; lastly, in place of the simple é», 
which is to be mentally supplied, there would be insensibly introduced a 
wholly different supplement, namely, évepyov, or a similar verb.* At the 
foundation of this explanation there lies, indeed, the presupposition, that 
the relation of the 7vinity is expressed in the three prepositions, as Jerome, 
Thomas, and many of the older expositors would have it. Against this alto- 
gether arbitrary supposition, however, Theophylact already rightly declared 
himself.? Olshausen, too, finds here, as at Rom. xi. 36, the Trinity; holding 
that God is described in His various relations to the creature [rather to the 
Christians] as Lord over all things, as instrument by which they are (this 
being held to apply to the Son), and as the element im which they are. 
Thus, moreover, the prepositional relation of the last two clauses is exact- 
ly reversed, inasmuch as not id rdvtTwv x.t.A. is explained, but d¢ ob mdvrec 
According to Beyschlag,* there is expressed, at least in the form of 
hint,the threefold mode of existence of God (‘‘self-preservation, self-disclosure, 
self-communication”). But apart from the fact that such a threefold form 
of existence is not the expression of the New Testament triad, the self-com- 
munication, in fact, is implied not only in év zaow, but necessarily already 
Lastly, Koppe is wrong in an opposite way: ‘‘ Sententia 
videtur wna, tantum variis formulis synonymis (!) expressa haec: cud vos omnes 
debetis omnia,” ‘‘ The thought seems one; only this is expressed in various sy- 
nonymous formulas; viz., ‘‘ to whom you all owe all things.” —Observe, further, 
that the great fundamental elements of unity, vv. 4-6, are matters of fact, 
historically given with Christianity itself, and as such are not affected by 
differences of doctrine ; hence without reason there have been found here 
traces of the later age, when ‘‘ upon the basis of the Pauline thought a 
Catholic church was built,” of which the centralization in doctrine and 
constitution was not derived from the adherents of Paul, but was a Petrine 
thought.* The Catholic idea in our passage is just the Pauline one (1 Cor. 
xii.), cherished by Christ Himself (John xvii. 20 f.). 

Ver. 7.° Aé] forms the transition from the summary rdvtwr, ravtwr, Taow, 
ver. 6, to each individual among the Christians. No single one, however,— 
in order to adduce this also as motive to the preservation of the évéry¢ Tov 
rvevmatoc,—was overlooked in the endowing with grace ; on every individ- 


K.T.A. ! 


in o.a rdvTov. 


diffusus est per omnia ecclesiae membra,”’ 


brovght about by means of all; and Reiche : 
“For by the Spirit of sanctification, God 


“omnibus utitur quasi instrumentis, quibus 


has been diffused through ali the members 
of the Church,” Calvin. 

17This also in opposition to Winzer: 
“qui per omnes operatur, quasi unoquo- 
que utitur ad declarandam suam majesta- 
tem, ad consilia sua exsequenda,” ‘‘ who 
works through all, as though He uses each 
one to declare His majesty and execute His 
counsels.””> So, in the main, de Wette 
(comp. Bengel): it applies to the operation 


. res Christiana stabilitur, augetur, con- 
summatur,” ‘‘ He uses all as instruments 
whereby Christianity is established, aug- 
mented, and consummated.” 

2 See also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 201. 

3 Christol. d. N. T. p. 250. 

4 Schwegler. 

5 See on vv. 7-9, Hoelemann, Bibelstudien, 
Ip. 93 if. 


CHAP. IY., 8. 443 
ual was it conferred, the grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, 
so that each individual on his part can and ought to contribute to the pres- 
ervation of that unity. — 7 yaprc] t.e., according to the context, the grace of 
God at work among the Christians, the communication of which is manifested 
in the diverse yapicuara ; hence our passage is in harmony with the repre- 
sentation given, Rom. xii. 6. — éd607] by Christ. — xara 1d wérpov K.7.2.] TiC 
dwpeac is a subjective genitive (Rom. xii. 3, 6 ; Eph. iv. 13). Hence: in 
the proportion in which the gift of Christ is meted out, according as Christ 
apportions to the one a larger, to the other a smaller measure of His gift 
(i.e., the gift of the divine ydpic). — The duped tov Xpictoi is the gift which 
Christ gives (2 Cor. ix. 15), not : which Christ has received,’ in opposition to 
which ver. 8, édwxe déuata tr. avdp., is decisive. 

Ver. 8. If it had just been said that by Christ the endowment of grace 
was distributed in varied measure to each individual, this is now conjsirmed 
by a testimony of the Scripture. Nothing is to be treated as a parenthesis, 
inasmuch as neither course of thought nor construction is interrupted. — dd 
Aéyer] wherefore, because the case stands, as has been said, ver. 7, He saith. 
Who says it (comp. v. 14), is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word 
the Scripture is. See on 1 Cor. vi. 16 ; Gal. iii. 16 ; the supplying 7 ypaeq 
or To tvevua Must have been suggested by the context (Rom. xv. 10). The 
manner of citation with the simple Aéyer, obviously meant of God, has as its 
necessary presupposition, in the mind of the writer and readers, the Theop- 
neustia of the O. T. The citation that follows is not ‘‘ ex carmine, quod 
ab Ephesiis cantitari sciret,” ‘‘from a hymn, which he knew was often sung 
by the Ephesians,” and for which Ps. Ixviii. 18 had partly furnished the 
words,’—which is quite an arbitrary way of avoiding the difficulty, and at 
variance with the divine Aéyez,—but is the passage of Scripture Ps. Ixvili. 
18 itself according to the LXX. with. free alteration. This psalm, in its his- 
torical sense a song of triumph upon the solemn entry of God into Zion,* is 
here understood according to its Messianic significance—an understanding, 
which has its warrant, not indeed in the much too general and vague prop- 
osition, that one and the same God is the Revealer of the Old and of the 





1 Oeder, in Wolf ; see in opposition tothis 
view, already Calvin. 

2 Storr, Opusc. III. p. 309; Flatt. 

$On what particular historic occasion 
this highly poetic song was composed, is 
for our passage a matter of indifference. 
According to the traditional view, it was 
composed by David on the occasion of the 
removal of the ark of the covenant from 
the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem (2 
Sam. vi. 12 ff.; 1 Chron. xy. f.) ; according 
to Ewald, for the consecration of the new 
temple after the captivity; according to 
Hupfeld, upon the return from the captivity 
and the restoration of the kingdom; ac- 
cording to Hitzig, in celebration of the vic- 
tory after the war of Jehoram and Jehosh- 
aphat against the Moabites (2 Kings iii.).’ 


Others explain it otherwise. See the dif- 
ferent views and explanations in Reuss, @. 
acht u. sechzigste Psalm, ein Denkmal exeget. 
Noth u. Kunst, 1851, who, however, himself 
very inappropriately (without ‘‘ exegetical 
exigency and art’’) places the psalm in the 
late period between Alexander and the 
Maccabees, when the wish for the reunion 
of the seattered Israelites in Palestine is 
supposed to be expressed in it; while Jus- 
tus Olshausen even interprets it of the vic- 
tories of the Maccabees under Jonathan or 
Simon. See Ewald, Jahrb. IV. p. 55 f. 
Certainly the psalm is neither Davidic nor 
of the Maccabaean age, but belongs to the 
restoration of the Theocracy after the cap- 
tivity. 


444 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


New Covenant,! but in the circumstance that the triumphal procession of 
Jehovah, celebrated in the psalm, represents the victory of the Theoeracy ; 
and that, as every victory of the Theocracy is of a typical and in so far pro- 
phetic Messianic character, the return of Christ into heaven appears as the 
Messianic actual consummation of the divine triumph. The free deviation 
from the original text and the LX.X. consists partly in the immaterial cir- 
cumstance that Paul transfers into the third person that which is said in 
the second, and adds to avéparore the article wanting in the LXX. ; partly 
in the essential point, that instead of the original sense: ‘‘ Thou receivedst 
gifts (namely, gifts of homage) among? men,” * he expresses the sense : He 
gave gifts to men,* while in other respects reproducing the transition of the 
LXX. Consequently Paul has, as regards the éduxe, given a sense opposite 
to the original one—a degree of variation such as, with all freedom in the 
employment of Old Testament passages, is nowhere else met with in the 
writings of the apostle, on ~ shich account the book Chissuk Emuna accused 
him of falsifying the wv ids of the psalm, while Whiston looked upon the 
Hebrew text and the LXX. in Ps. Ixviii. 18 as corrupt. This difference is 
not to be explained, with Riickert, by lightly asserting : ‘‘ Paul did not 
even perhaps know exactly how the words ran,” etc.; for in this way he 
would be chargeable with a shallow caprice, for which there is no warrant; 
moreover, the agreement, in other respects, of the citation with the original 
text and the LXX. leads us to infer too exact an acquaintance with the pas- 
sage adduced, to allow us to assume that Paul adduced the words in the 
full belief that {1 was read in the Hebrew, and édwxe in the LXX. Rather — 
must he have in reality wnderstood the passage of the psalm, as to its main 
substance, just as he gives it. Inasmuch, namely, as he had recognized the 
words in their bearing upon the antitypical Messianic fulfilment, and that 
as a confirmation of what had been said of Christ in ver. 7, this latter spe- 
cial application must have been suggested to him by another reading, which 
he followed,*° or else—with the freedom of a Messianic interpretation of the 
words—by an exposition of the Hebrew words, which yielded essentially the 
sense expressed by him. If the latter is the case (for in favor of the former 
there is no trace of critical support), he took NP?, etc., in the sense : thow 
didst take away gifts, to distribute them among men,° and translated this in an 


1 Harless. the closing words of the passage). The 


2 Yet DISI might also denote that men 
themselves are the gifts. So Ewald takes it, 
lc. (and comp. his Ausfiihrl. Lehrb. der 
Hebr. Sprache, § 287 h), referring it specially 
to the humbler servants of the temple, 
whom David and Solomon,e.g., gathered 
from among the subjugated peoples and 
settled around the temple, whom thus God, 
as if ina triumphal procession from Sinai 
to Zion, Himself brought in as captives, 
and then caused to be devoted by men to 
Him as offerings, in order that they, who 
were once so turbulent, might dwell peace- 
fully in His service (‘‘ even rebellious ones 
must dwell with Jah God,” as Ewald renders 


sense: ‘‘ through men,” which Hoelemann, 
on account of ver. 11, finds as a ‘* second- 
ary” meaning in D823, is not to be thought 
of, not even according to the apostle, who 
has expressed his view with such simple 
definiteness by eSwke tols avOpwr7ots. 

2 DIN DAD AMP), LXX.: rapes 8¢- 
pata ev avOpi7w, or according to another 
reading: ev av@pwrrois. 

“DWN? MIND 12 

5 13 instead of nnp». 

®On the 3, see Ewald, Ausfiihrl. Lehrb. 


der Heb. Spr. § 217 f. 1. 


CHAPS Lyn, 0: 445 
explanatory way: édwxe douata toic avOperore ; in connection with which the 
transposing into the third person is to be regarded as an unintentional va- 
riation in citing from memory. np», namely, has often the proleptic sense 
to fetch [Germ. holen], é.e., to take anything for a person and to give it to 
him.’ Comp. Bengel : ‘‘ accepit dona, quae statim daret,” ‘‘he received gifts, 
which he immediately gave.” The utterance, however, as thus understood,’ 
Paul has reproduced, interpreting it as he has done, in order to place be- 
yond doubt the sense which he attached to it, for the reader who might 
have otherwise understood the words of the LXX. The Chaldee Para- 
phrast likewise understood mp? in such wise, that, while interpreting the 
passage of Moses, he could expound : SW) 337 yap nin? dedisti dona filiis 
hominum, ‘‘Thou hast given gifts to the children of men.” It is evident 
from this, since there is good reason for presupposing in the Targum—the 
more so, as in our passage the Peshito agrees therewith *—older exegeti- 
cal traditions, that Paul himself may have followed such a tradition.4 To 
assume that he actually did so, is in itself, and tie, eference to the previous 
Rabbinical training of the apostle, free from objection, and has sufficient war- 
rant in that old and peculiar agreement, even though we should explain the 
agreement between the same citation in Justin, ¢. Tryph. 39, 87, and the quo- 
tation of the apostle, by a dependence upon the latter.° On the other hand, 
it is not to be said, with Beza, Calovius, and most older expositors,® that 
the explanation given by Paul really corresponds with the historic sense of 
the passage in the Psalm,’ which, judging by the context, is decidedly in- 
correct. Even Calvin says: ‘‘nonnihil a genuino sensu hoc testimonium 
detorsit Paulus,” ‘‘ Paul somewhat distorted this testimony from its gen- 
uine sense ;” and already Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly remarks : iwaiAdEac 
6& 70 éAaBe Obata ovtwc Ev TH Wahud kelwevov, EOWKE ObparTa Eire, TH 
wraddayy Tept THY olKeiavy Yypnoduevocg akoAoviiav’ éxei wev ydp, ‘exchanging the . 
‘ He received gifts,’ thus stated in the psalm, he said, ‘ He gave gifts,’ using 
hypallage for a proper construction ; for there” (in the psalm) rpo¢ rap 
ixdbeow To EAa Bev Fppuorrer, évtavda dé, ‘‘ he joined, ‘received,’ to the subject, 
while here” (in our passage) 16 rpoxewévw TO EDWKEV aKdAovBov Ar, * ‘gave?’ 
was in accordance with what preceded.” The deviation from the historic 
sense cannot be set aside with fairness and without arbitrary presupposi- 
tions. This holds not only of the opinions of Jerome and Erasmus (that in the 
psalm mp is used, because the giving has not yet taken place, but is prom- 


1 See Gen. xviii. 5, xxvii. 13, xlii. 16, xlviii. 
9; Job xxxviii. 20 (and Hirzel in Joc.); 2 
Sam. iv. 6, al.; see Gesen. Thes. II. p. 760, 
and Hoelemann, p. 97 f. 

2 The phrase formerly so often compared, 


109 Tvs mp? (Ex. xxi. 10, xxiv. 16), is 
notin place here, since np», in that phrase, 
signifies nothing else than the simple fake. 

3 Which likewise, Ps. xviii. /.c., has dedisti 
dona filiis hominum, ** Thou hast given gifts 


to the children of men.”’ 
4 Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Cred- 


ner, Bettrdge, Il. p. 121 f. 

5 Credner, Beitr. II. p. 120. 

6 Chrysostom, without, however, enter- 
ing into any particulars, says merely: the 
prophet says thow hast received, but Paul: 
he has given ; and the two are one and the 
same. Theodoret more precisely explains 
himself : audorepa dé (the taking and giving) 
yeyevyvats AapBavwv yap THY mloTLW aTrodidwor 
Thy xapiv, ‘both occurred; for receiving 
faith, he gave grace.’’ Comp. Oecumenius. 

7 See especially, Geier, ad Ps. U.c. p. 1181; 
comp. also Hoelemann, p. 98 f. 


446 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


ised as future) and of Calvin,’ but also of the expedients to which Harless 
and Olshausen have recourse. According to Harless, namely, Paul wishes 
to express the identity of God, whose deeds at that time the word of Script- 
ure represents in a form which, as identical with the form of Christ’s action, 
makes us recognize the word of the O. T. as pointing forward to what was 
to come, and the Christ of the N. T. as the God who already revealed Him- 
self under the O. T.; in the words of the psalm the captives themselves are 
described as sacrificial gifts, which the victor as God takes to Himself among 
men ; the apostle changes merely the jorm of the words, so far as the con- 
text makes it necessary, inasmuch as he wishes to make out that those van- 
guished ones—who have not made themselves what they are, but have been 
made so of God — are those, of whom he had said that on every one accord- 
ing to the measure of the gift of Christ the grace had been bestowed which 
was already pointed to in the psalm. ‘‘ There is no other there,” says the apos- 
tle, ‘‘than He who had descended to earth, to gain for Himself His own ; 
not that they would have presented themselves to Him, but He takes them 
as it pleases Him, and makes them what it pleases Him.” But (1) 
Paul does not wish to express the identity of God, etc., but to show 
that what is said ef Christ in ver. 7 was also already prophesied Ps. 
Ixvili. 18; it was a question of the identity of the thing, as to which 
it was self-evident that the triumph celebrated in Ps. Ixviii. is in 
the N. T. fulfilment celebrated by Christ, who had come in the name of the 
Lord. (2) In the Ps. J.¢., 39 nnp», ‘thou hast received gifts,” applies 
to the gifts ef homage which the triumphing Jehovah has received among 
(from) men. Certainly, according to another explanation (see above, 
Ewald’s view, and comp. also Bleek), the men themselves, namely, the van- 
quished, may be regarded as the gifts or offerings which God has received ; 
but who could withal read between the lines in the apostle’s citation what, 
according to Harless, one ought to read between them, in order in the end 
to find only the form of the words changed? Olshausen, who, we may men- 
tion, quite erroneously (see vv. 9, 10) specifies roic avfpéroe as the point of 
the citation,’ agrees with Harless in so far as he is of opinion that the 


1“Quum de Christi exaltatione pauca 
yerba Psalmi citasset, de suo adjecit, cum 


itself the universality of the gifts of Christ, 
consequently the equal title of the Gentiles; 


dedisse dona, ut sit minoris et majoris com- 
paratio, qua ostendere vult Paulus, quanto 
praestantior sit ista Dei ascensio in Chris- 
ti persona, quam fuerit in veteribus eccle- 
siae triumphis,’” ‘“When he cited a few 
words of the Psalm concerning Christ’s 
exaltation, he added by his own authority, 
that he had given gifts, in order that there 
might be a comparison of less and greater, 
whereby Paul wants to show how much 
more excellent is this ascension of God in 
the person of Christ, than it was in the an- 
cient triumphs.” 

2“ Paul does not wish by the quotation 
primarily to represent Christ as the dispens- 
er of the gifts, but to prove from the O. T. 


He has by His redemption conferred gifts 
not merely on this one or that one, not up- 
on the Jews alone, but upon men as such, 
upon mankind.” What Olshausen has fur- 
ther advanced respecting the dative ex- 
pression with the article (instead of which 
the Hebrew text has among men, while no 
article is used in the LXX.)—to wit, that 
by 6. dou. tots av@pwHmots, which ap- 
plies to a men, itis not intended to say: 
all men must be redeemed, and as redeem- 
ed receive gifts; but: all men may be re- 
deemed, and as redeemed obtain gifts of 
grace; and in so far this deviation from 
the original was altogether immaterial—is 
pure invention. The difference certainly 


CHAP. Iv., 8. 447 
thought of the psalmist : ‘‘ Thou hast taken to Thyself gifts among men,” 
affirms nothing else than: ‘‘Thou hast chosen to Thyself the redeemed as 
offerings ;” but further adds: ‘‘ But the man whom God chooses as an of- 
fering for Himself, 7.e., as an instrument for His aims, He furnishes with 
the gifts necessary to the attainment of the same ; and this side (?) the 
apostle, in accordance with his tendency, here brings into special promi- 
nence.” Similarly also Hofmann,’ who is of opinion that here, in the N. T. 
application of the passage from the psalm, it is one and the same thing 
whether one say : that Christ has, for the accomplishment of the work of 
His honor, caused to be given to Himself by His vanquished that which 
they possessed, or: that He has given them gifts to this end ; ‘for He 
takes that which is theirs into His service, when He gives to them what is 
His, to make them capable of service.” Essentially so also Delitzsch on 
the psalm, /.c. Such subtleties, by means of which any quid pro quo at 
pleasure may easily enough be got out of the alleged light and significance 
of the “history of the fulfilment,” ? may be conveniently foisted upon the 
words of the apostle, but with what right ?— avafac cic ioc] Whether we 
understand the pin my in the original text of the ascending of the vic- 
torious God into heaven*® or to Zion,* or leave it without more precise defi- 
nition of place ;° according to the Messianic accomplishment of the divine tri- 
umphal procession, which takes place through Christ, the words apply to 
Christ ascended (comp. bywbeic, Acts i. 33) to heaven (Ps. cii. 20, al.; Ecclus. 
xiii, 8; Lukei. 78), who has brought in as captives enemies that have been 
vanquished by Him upon this triumphal march. [See Note XXXIX., 
p. 484 seq. ]—aiyuadwcia, namely, is the abstract collective for aiyudAwro (Ju- 
dith ii. 9; Ezr. vi. 5; Rev. xiii. 10 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 70), like Fvupayia for 
Eippayo, etc. See onii. 2. On the connection with the kindred verb (to 
take captive, to lead, to bring in as such), comp. 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ; 
1 Mace. ix. 72 ; and see, in general, Winer, p. 201 ; Lobeck, Paral. p. 501. 
The character of aiyuadwreiw as Greek is even worse than that of ciyuadwrivo.® 
But what subjects are meant by aiyuatwoia? Not the redeemed, as already 
Justin, c. Tryph. 36; further, Theodoret (ob yap éAeviépove dvtac uae 
HXmaAaTevoer, AAM ir6 Tov SiaBoAov yeyevnuévove avTyyuaAerervoe, Kal THY éAevbepiav 
nuiv édwphoato, ‘* He did not make captive us who were free, but in turn 
made us captive who were under the devil, and presented us with freedom”) 
Oecumenius, Thomas, Erasmus,’ and others, including Meier, Harless, Ols- 


does not lie in the fact that DIs3 points 


only to some, and the expression of Paul to 
aii men, as Olshausen supposes, but solely 


1 Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 484 f. 

2 Delitzsch. 

3 Hengstenberg, Lengerke, Hitzig, Har- 
less, Hoelemann, and others. 


in the nnp? of the original text and the 


edwke Of Paul. As well DWS83 as rots avOpw- 
mos designates men according to the cate- 
gory ; but according to the original text it 
is men who are the givers, so that the Tri- 
umphator fakes them; whereas, according 
to Paul, the menare the recipients, to whom 
He gives. 


4 Ewald, Bleek. 

5 Hofmann. 

§ See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 442. 

7™**Captivorum gregem e peccati dia- 
bolique tyrannide liberatum,” ‘‘a body of 
captives delivered from the tyranny of sin 
and the devil.”’ 


/ 


448 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

hausen,’ Baumgarten-Crusius,* have interpreted it ; seeing that the captives, 
both according to the original text and according to our citation, are differ- 
ent from the av6pdro, ‘‘ men,” who are subsequently mentioned, namely, such 
vanquished ones as are visited by the victor with the hard penal fate of cap- 
tives in war. Hence also it cannot be the souls delivered by Christ from 
Hades* that are spoken of. It is the enemies of Christ and His kingdom, the 
antichristian powers, including those of hell (but not these alone) ; their 
power is broken by the completed redeeming work of the Lord. By His 
resurrection and exaltation they have been rendered powerless, and subject- 
ed to His victorious might ; consequently they appear, in accordance with 
the poetical mould of our passage, as those whom He has vanquished and 
carries with Him on His procession from Hades into heaven (see ver. 9), so 
that He, having gone up on high, brings them in as prisoners of war. Not as 
if He has really brought them in captivity to heaven, but under the jigure 
of the triumphator, as which the ascended Christ appears in accordance with 
the prophetic view given in Ps. lxvili., the matter thus presents itself, 
namely, the overcoming of His foes displaying itself through His ascension. 
This vanquishing, we may add, in its actual execution still continues even 
after the entering upon the kingly office which took place with the exalta- 
tion of Christ ; dez yap airév Bacidebew aypic ob 0) Tavtac Tove EXOpode UTS 
tov¢ médac avtov, ‘‘ for He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under 
His feet,” 1 Cor. xv. 25. Not the jinal overcoming of the foes of 
Christ is thus meant, but the actual aiyuadorevery aiyuad. ofttimes recurs un- 
til the final consummation, until at length écyaroc¢ éyOpoc Katapyeita 6 
@avatoc, ‘* The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,” 1 Cor. xv. 
26, namely, at the resurrection on the last day. In this case, however, 
there is the more reason for leaving the matter without more precise 
definition of the hostile powers vanquished (Satanic and human), as 
the context suggests nothing more special, and as, speaking generally, the 
nxwahoT. aiyuad. does not form for the aim and connection of our passage 
the essential point of the psalmist’s saying, but the latter would have 
been quite as fully in its place here, even though that 7yyaddr. aiypy. had 
not been inserted, since the element confirmatory of ver. 7 lies simply 


in the dvaBac eig ioc Edwxe dduata toig avbporoce.* 


1 ““Men upon earth, so far as they are 
held captive by sin and in the ultimate 
ground by the prince of this world, and 
among these, in particular, the Gentile 
world.”’ 

2“ Those gained for the kingdom of 
Christ.” 

3 Lyra, Estius, and many Catholic exposi- 
tors; K6nig, von Christi Hollenfalrt, p. 26; 
Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 414; and Baur. 

+ Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Calo- 
vius, and many others understood specially 
the devil and those things connected with 
him, death, condemnation, and sin. Comp. 
Luther’s gloss: ‘‘that is sin, death, and 


Yet we have not, with 


conscience, that they may not seize or keep 
us.”’ Grotius rationalizes : ‘‘ per apostolorum 
doctrinam, vicit et velut captivam egit 
idololatriam et vitia alia,” ‘ by the doctrine 
of the apostles he conquered and led édolatry 
and other vices captive.” Most compre- 
hensively, but with an admixture of hetero- 
geneous elements, Calvin says: ‘* Neque 
enim Satanam modo et peccatum et mor- 
tem totosque inferos prostravit, sed ex 
rebellibus quotidie facit sibi obsequentem 
populum, quum verbo suo carnis nostrae 
lasciviam domat; rursus hostes suos, 7.¢., 
impios omnes quasi ferreis catenis continet 
constrictos, dum illorum furorem cohibet 


CHAP, IVi> 95 449 
Morus,' to rationalize the conception of the apostle: ‘‘removit omnia, quae 
religionis suae propagationi et felicitati hominum obstarent impedimenta,” 
‘‘He removed all things which, as impediments, obstructed the propagation 
of his religion and the happiness of men,” by which the sense is altered, and 
vanquished foes become obstacles taken out of the way. — déuara] according 
to Paul, gifts in which 20607 7% yapio, ver. 7, thus equivalent to yapiopara. 
An appropriate commentary on the sense in which Paul has taken the 
citation, is Acts ii. 38. But to look upon the interpretation of the éaBe 
déuara of the Ps. l.c., in the sense of gifts of the Spirit as current among 
the disciples of the apostles,* is the more arbitrary, inasmuch as de Wette him- 
self finds it probable that some apostle [see Note XL., p. 485,] has alle- 
gorized the passage of the psalm. 

Ver. 9 is not a (Rabbinical) argument to show that the subject of the pas- 
sage in the psalm is no other than Christ, in so far as of Him alone could 
be predicated that descending which, in speaking of ascending, must be 
presumed to have gone before.* Such an argument would have been aim- 
less, since the subject of the passage of the psalm in its Messianic fulfilment 
was self-evident ; it would, moreover, not have even logical correctness, 
since, in fact, God Himself, as often in the O. T., might be thought of as 
the xataBac who avé8y. Paul rather brings out in ver. 9 what the ascension 
of Christ prophetically meant in Ps. \xvili. contains as its presupposition ; and 
this for the end of showing * how the matter affirmed and supported by the 
passage of the psalm in ver. 7, namely, Christ’s bestowal of grace on all 
individuals respectively, stands in necessary connection with His general posi- 
tion of filling the whole universe ; a function upon which He must have entered 
by His very descending into the depths of the earth and His ascending above all 
heavens (ver. 10). — dé] carrying forward the argument : ‘‘ but the avéy, in 
order now to show you what is therewith said,” etc. — 76 avéBy] not: the 
word avéBn, for this does not occur in the passage of the psalm, but the predi- 
cate avéBn, which was contained in avaBac. —ri éorw] not : what ef an extra- 
ordinary nature,® but simply : what is said therewith, what is implied in it ? 
Comp. Matt. ix. 13 ; John xvi., 17 f., x. 6, al. —6ru kai xaréBy| that He also 
(not merely ascended, but also) descended. The having ascended presup- 
poses the having descended. The correctness of this conclusion rests upon 
the admitted fact that the risen Christ had His original dwelling not upon 
earth, as Elijah had, but in the heaven, whither He went up ; consequently 


sua virtute, ne plus valeant, quam illis con- 
cedit, ‘““For not only did he prostrate 
Satan, and sin, and death, and all hell, but 
out of the rebellious he daily makes for 
Himself an obedient people, when by His 
word he subdues the wantonness of our 
flesh ; again His enemies, #.¢., all the god- 
less He holds bound as though with iron 
chains, while by his virtue He curbs their 
fury, so that they have no more power than 
He concedes them.” 

1 Comp. Flatt. 

2 De Wette. 


29 


3 Michaelis, Koppe; Giider, von der Ers- 
chein. Christi unter den Todten, p. 83; also 
my own earlier view. 

4 The view of Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Erasmus, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others, 
again taken up by Olshausen (comp. also 
Hofmann, /.c. 348), that Paul would by the 
example of Christ exhort to humility, is 
quite at variance with the context. And 
Riickert also is wrong in holding that ver. 9 
contains only an incidental remark, which 
might equally well have been wanting. 

5 Hoelemann. 


450 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

He could not but have descended from this, if He has ascended. Comp. 
John iii. 13. —The depth, however, into which He descended—whether, 
namely, merely to the earth, or deeper still into the subterranean world—is 
not to be inferred from the avé(7 itself, but was fixed with historic certainty 
in the believing consciousness of the readers ; hence Paul could with good 
reason write not merely ore kai KavéBy, but 67: Kai kat. Ele Ta KaTOTEpa 
rhe yie, i.e., into that which is deeper down than the earth, into Hades." He 
might also have designated Hades by ra katérara rie vie, the lowest 
depth of the earth (YISD NVANN, LXX. Ps. lxiii. 9 ; Prayer of Azar. 13 ; 
not Ps, exxxix. 15, where ‘‘in the depths of the earth” is only a sensuous 
form of the conception ‘‘in secret”) ; but has purposely chosen that compara- 
tive expression—in which the genitive is that of comparison, not the parti- 
tive genitive—in order to impart as strong a coloring as possible to the depth 
of Hades, in contradiction to that heaven from which Christ descended ; He 
descended deeper than the earth is (the earth being conceived of as a plane), 
in that He descended even into the swbterranean region beyond, into Hades. 
The goal of the humiliation Paul here designates locally, whereas at Phil. ii. 8 
he specifies it as respects the degree, namely, by péype Gavarov «.7.2., which, 
however, is as to substance in agreement with our passage, since the death 
of Christ had as its immediate consequence His descent into Hades (Luke 
xxiii. 43 ; Matt. xii. 40 ; Acts ii.27; 1 Pet. iii. 19), as, indeed, also at Phil. 
ii. 10 (xarayAoviov) this descent is presupposed as having taken place in 
death. The explanation of the so-called descent into hell? is therefore the 
right one,*? because the object was to present Christ as the One who fills the 
whole universe, so that, with a view to His entering upon this His all-filling 
activity, He has previously with His victorious presence passed through the 
whole world, having descended from heaven into the utmost depth, and 
ascended from this depth to the utmost height—a view, which of necessity 
had to extend not merely to the earth, but even into the nether world, just 
because Christ, as was historically certain for every believer, had been in the 
nether world, and consequently, by virtue of His exaltation to the right 
hand of God, really had the two wtmost limits of the universe, from below 
upwards, as the terminos a quo and ad quem of His triumphal progress. 
Further, had Paul intended only the descent to earth,* it would not be easy 
to see why he should not have written merely xaré3y, or at any rate simply 


1 katéBynv Souov "Aidos ciow, ““T descended 
within the abode of Hades,’’? Hom. Qd. 
XXili. 252; “AiSao Souovs vd KevOeor yains 
éepxeat, ‘““ You come to the abode of 
Hades, beneath the depths of the earth,” 
il.-xxii. 482; comp. Od. xxiv. 204; Soph. 
Ant. 816, Trach. 1088. 

2 Trenaeus in Pitra, Spicileg. Solesmense, I. 
p. 7; Tertullian, Jerome, Pelagius, Ambro- 
siaster, Erasmus, Estius, Calovius, Bengel, 
and many others, including Rickert, Ols- 
hausen, Delitzsch, Lechler, Ewald, Hoele- 
mann, Bleek; Baur scenting Gnosticism 
[Braune, Gess, Ewald, H, Miiller]. 


3 Thomasius, IT. p. 262, is stilldoubtful on 
the question ; Kahnis, I. p. 508, regards it 
as preponderantly probable. Calvin called 
it inepta, “ silly,” and Reiche faisa, ‘‘ false.” 

4 Thomas, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Ham- 
mond, Michaelis, Fischer, de vitits Lex. 
N. T.,and many, including Winer, p. 470; 
Holzhausen, Meier, Matthies, Harless, 
Ribiger, p. 68 ff., Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Hofmann, p. 345, Bisping, Schenkel, 
Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 291, Reiche, Comm. 
crit. p. 1174 f., Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. 
228 [Weiss’ Bibl. Theol., R. Schmidt, Hilgen- 
feld, Pfleiderer, Reuss, Engelhardt]. 


CHAP. Tvs, 10, 451 


KatéBn eico THY yHv OY KatéBy eico THY yFv Kato (Acts li. 19), instead of 
employing the circumstantial and affected, but yet only feebly paraphrasing 
expression : into the lower regions, which are the earth (for so we should have to 
explain ei¢ Ta katarepa tiH¢ yc, understood only of the earth ; see Winer, /.c.). 
This expression is only accounted for, sharp and telling, when it points the 
reader to a region lower than the earth, to that Hades, whither every reader 
knew that Christ had descended. Doubtless the apostle might have writ- 
ten simply cic ddov (Acts il. 27) or éo¢ adov (Matt. xi. 23), or also cic rv 
aBvocov (Rom. x. 7) or eic tHv Kapdiav tHe yao (Matt. xii. 40) ; but the whole 
pathos of the passage, with its contrast of the extremes of depth and height, 
very naturally suggested the purposely chosen designation ei¢ ra Katérena 
tie yye. The ordinary objection, that, in fact, Christ did not ascend from 
Hades, but from earth to heaven, is of no effect, because He has in reality 
returned, arisen and ascended from Hades, consequently Hades was the 
deepest terminus a quo of His ascension, as it had previously been the deep- 
est terminus ad quem of His descent, and on this deepest turning-point all 
here depended, even apart from the fact that the long interval of forty days 
between resurrection and ascension is historically very problematic (see 
Remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 51). Nearest to our view come Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Bullinger, Drusius, Zachariae, and others, 
who, however, refer the passage only to the death and the burial ; } whereas 
Calomesius, Witsius, Calixtus, and others (already Beza, by way of sugges- 
tion), appealing to Ps. cxxxix. 15, strangely enough interpret it of the 
descent into the womb. [See Note XLI., p. 485.] 

Ver. 10. Result from ver. 9, without oiv, but thereby coming in the more 
vividly and with a certain triumph ; ‘‘alio gravi dicto antecedentia com- 
plectitur aut absolvit,” ‘‘ By another weighty expression he sums up or com- 
pletes what precedes.” *— The prefixed 6 xaraBac has the emphasis, which is 
further augmented by airéc :* The one who descended, just He, He precisely 
(identity of the person), is also the one who ascended on high above all heavens. 
— 6 avaBic drepdvo ravrwv Tov oipav.] points back to that dvaBd¢ cic ioe, 
ver. 8, more precisely defining this cic toc as the region highest of all. 
The expression ‘‘ above all heavens’ has its basis in the conception of seven 
heavens, which number is not to be diminished to three. See on 2 Cor. xii. 
2. The drepdvo (in the N. T. only here and i. 21; Heb. ix. 5) describes the 
exaltation of Christ—clearly to be maintained as local—as the highest of all 
(comp. trepiypoce, Phil. ii. 9), in such wise that He, having ascended through 
all heavens (dieAnAvfdra rove ovpavoic, Heb. iv. 14), has seated Himself above 
in the highest heaven, as the civépovoc of the Father, at the right hand of 
God. Comp. Heb. vii. 26 : imadrepoc tov obpavév yevsuevoc. The spiritual- 
istic impoverishing of this concrete conception to a mere denial of all ‘‘en- 
closure within the world” ® is nothing but a rationalistic invention. Comp. 


1 Comp. also Hriang. Zeitschr. 1856, p. 284. 4 Harless : anp, aidyp, tpitos ovpavds ; comp. 

2 Dissen, ad Pind. Fxe. I. p. 278. Grotius, Meier [Delitzsch in Luth. Zeit- 

3 ov yap aGhAos KareAjAvbe Kai GAXos avedy- _ schrift for 1873, pp. 609-13], and others. 
AvGev, *‘ For he who came down is no other 5 Hofmann, II. 1, p. 535. 


than he who went up,” Theodoret. 


452 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

Acts vii. 56, iii. 21, i. 9-11. —iva rAnpdoy ta révra] points back to the be- 
stowal of grace expressed in ver. 7, and prophetically confirmed in ver, 8, 
and that as expressing the universal relation into which Christ has entered 
towards the whole world by His exaltation from the lowest depth to the lofti- 
est height ; in which universal relation is also of necessity contained, as a 
special point, that bestowal of grace on all individuals. As intended aim, 
however (iva), this rAnpotv ra ravra stands related to the previous ascension” 
of Christ from the uttermost depth, into which He had descended, to the 
uttermost height of heaven ; because He had first, like a triumphing con- 
queror (see ver. 8), to take possession of His whole domain, i.e., the whole 
world from Hades to the highest heaven, in order now to wield His kingly 
sway over this domain, by virtue of which He was to jill the universe with His 
activity of sustaining and governing, and especially of providing all bestowal of 
grace. [See Note XLIIL., p. 485.] This was to be the all-embracing task of 
His kingly office, until the consummation indicated at 1 Cor. xv. 28. It 
is according to this view, and from i. 23, self-evident that we have to 
explain zAyp. ta ravra, neither with Koppe,' de vaticiniorum complemento, 
‘‘ of the fulfilment of prophecies,” nor with Rickert and Matthies, of the 
completion of the redeeming work ; nor yet possibly to limit ra ravra to the 
whole Christian community.? Comp, rather on i. 23, and observe that in 
our passage that évi dé éxdorw yudv 26607 x... of ver. 7 stands to this iva rAy- 
poon ta ravra in the same relation of the species to the genus, as in i. 23 76 
The ubiquity of 
the body of Christ* is not here, any more than at 1. 23 or elsewhere, spoken 
of ;4 although, with Philippi, Hoelemann has still found it here, holding 
the conception of the purely dynamic rAnpotv ta ravra as unrealizable, 
because Christ is in a glorified body. If this reason were valid, an absolute 
bodily omnipresence would result : it proves too much, and leads to a con- 
tradictio in adjecto, which could only receive a Docetic solution. [See Note 
XIV. on chap. i. 20 ; and Note III. on chap. i. 3.] 

Ver. 11.° And he has, etc. From the general rAnpotv ra révra, ver. 10, 
there is now brought into prominence in reference to the church, with a ret- 
rospective glance at ver. 7, the special point with which the apostle was here 
concerned, in order to give the clinching argument to his exhortation as to 
the keeping of the unity of the Spirit. Christ, who has ascended from the 
lowest depth to the loftiest height, in order to fill all things, precisely He, 
has—such is His autonomy in His church—given the different teachers and 
leaders of the church, until we all shall have attained to the unity of the 


TAnpwopa (Xptotov) does to tov ra Tavta év TaoL TANpov[EVoOD. 





1 Following Anselm and others. 

2 Beza, Grotius, Morus, Flatt, Schenkel, 
and others. 

3 Faber Stapulensis, Hunnius, and others ; 
specially contended for by Calovius. 

4 Wrongly are Oecumenius and Theophy- 
lact adduced as favoring this explanation. 
They, forsooth, very correctly refer the 
filling to the dominion and operation of 
Christ (comp. also Chrysostom), and ob- 
serve with equal justice that Christ, after 


He had already before His incarnation 
filled all things by His purely divine nature, 
now, after having, as the Incarnate One, 
descended and ascended, does the filling of 
the universe pera oapxds, ‘ with his flesh” 
(Oecumenius), 7.¢e., so that in doing so He is 
in a different state than before, namely, 
clothed with a body, consequently as God- 
man. 

5 See Schott, Progr. quo locus Pauli Ephes. 
iy. 11 seg., breviter explic., Jen. 1830. 


CHAP: Ty., 11. 453 
faith, etc. — We are not to treat as a parenthesis either vv. 8-10’ or vv. 9, 10,? 
since the continuation of the discourse with «ai aité¢ emphatically attaches 
itself to the preceding airéc. — édwxe| is not, any more than at i. 22, equiva- 
lent to éero,* seeing that, in fact, the giving in the proper sense, to which 
Paul here looks back, has preceded, and Christ has in reality given the apos- 
tles, etc., to the church,* namely, through the specific charismatic endow- 
ment and, respectively also, by His own immediate calling (aroordéiove) of the 
persons in question. Calvin rightly remarks on édwxe : ‘‘ quia nisi excitet, 
nulli erunt,” ‘‘ for unless He call forth there will be none.” This raising up 
and granting of the appropriate persons for the perfecting of the church as 
His body, not the institution of a spiritual office in itself, which as such has 
exclusively to administer His means of grace, is here ascribed to Christ.® 
The appointing to the service of the individual congregations (as mowévac 
kai didackx.) of such persons given by Christ lay in the choice of the congre- 
gations themselves, which choice, conducted by apostles or apostolic men, 
Acts xiv. 23, took place under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Acts xx. 28. 
Thus Christ gave the persons, and the community gave to them the service. 
As regards the time of the éduxe, it is to be observed that this was indeed a 
potior? the time after the ascension (among the apostles in the narrower sense, 
also as respects Matthias and Paul), but that, as was obvious for the readers, 
the earlier appointment of the original apostles was not thereby excluded. 
The latter, namely, are not alone meant by azoordAove, but (comp. on 1 Cor. 
xv. 7) also men like Barnabas and James the Lord’s brother must be reck- 
oned among them. — The order in which they are brought up is such, that 
those not assigned to a single church precede (azoor., rpog., evayy.), and 
these are arranged in the order of rank. Hence the zovuévec, because belong- 
ing to particular churches, had to follow, and it is without reason that a 
Montanistic depreciation of the bishops ° is found here. — rove vév aroordAove| 
some as apostles. ‘Their characteristics are their immediate calling by Christ, 
and their destination for all nations. Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 28. — rpogfrac] 
As to these speakers, who, on the receipt of revelation and through the 
Holy Spirit, wrought with highly beneficial effect, yet without ecstasy, who 
likewise in iii. 5 are mentioned after the apostles, see on 1 Cor. xii. 10; 
Acts xi, 27.— ebayyedvorac] who repiidvrec éxyputrov, ‘‘ going about, preached,” 
Theodoret ;7 missionary assistants to the apostles. See on Acts xxi. 8. Oecu- 


1 Griesbach and others. 

2 Koppe. 

3 Theophylact and many, including Meier, 
Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius. 

4 Observe the importance, for the con- 
tinued appointment of the ministers in the 
church, of the conception of the matter 
implied in edwxe, Christ gives the ministers 
of the church; the church fakes those 
given, and places them in the service of the 
ehurch. Thus the church (or whoever has 
to represent the rights and duties of the 
ehurch) has not in any way arbitrarily to 
choose the subjects, but to discern those 


endowed by Christ as those thereby given 
to it by Him, to acknowledge and to induct 
them into the ministry ; hence the highest 
idea of the ecclesiastical scrutiny is, to test 
whether the persons in question have been 
given by Christ, without prejudice, we may 
add, to the other existing requirements of 
ecclesiastical law. 

5 Comp. (in opposition to Miinchmeyer) 
Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 2, p. 283 ff. ; 
Miiller in the Deutsche Zeitschr. 1852, No. 21. 

6 Baur. 

7 See Nosselt, ad Theodoret. p. 424. 


454 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

menius would, at variance with the context (for Paul is speaking only of 
the exercise of teaching in the church), and probably also at variance with 
history (at least as regards our canonical gospels), understand the authors of 
the Gospels, which is adduced as possible also by Chrysostom. — rob¢ 68 ror- 
névac kai didack. | denotes not the presbyters and deacons,' nor the presbyters 
and evorcists,? nor yet the presbyters and teachers as two separate offices,* _ 
the latter in the sense of 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; but, as the non-repetition of rove dé 
shows, the presbyters and teachers as the same persons, so that the presbyters 
are designated by rovyévac in stated figurative appellation (1 Pet. v. 2 5 
Acts xx. 28; John xxi. 15 ff.) with reference to their function of guiding 
oversight over doctrine, life, and order in the church, consequently as émio- 
coro. 3} and by dudacKkddove, with reference to their function of teaching. 
We may add, that the diddécxador were not, as such, at the same time presby- 
ters, for the d:day4 was imparted by a special yapeoua, which even ordinary 
members of the church might possess (1 Cor. xiv. 26) ; but every presbyter 
was at the same time diddcoxatoc, and had to be endowed with this ydpioua ; 
hence Paul here puts together roiuévac kai didackadove, and, 1 Tim. iii. 2, it is 
laid down as the requirement of an éxicxoro¢ that he should be d:daxrixé¢. — 
Comp. Tit. i. 9. See also Augustine, Hp. lix. Comp. Jerome: ‘Nemo 
. . . pastoris sibi nomen assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit,” 
“No one ought to assume for himself the name of pastor, unless he can 
teach whom he feeds.” 1 Tim. v. 17 is not opposed to this (see Huther in 
loc.). 

Ver. 12. Behoof, for which Christ has given, etc. ‘‘ Non potuit honori- 
ficentius verbi ministerium commendare, quam dum hunc illi effectum tri- 
buit,” ‘‘ He could not commend the ministry of the word with greater 
honor, than by ascribing to it this effect,” Calvin. — The three clauses are not 
co-ordinate.* Against the co-ordination may be decisively urged not the 
varying of the prepositions, for Paul is fond of interchanging them (comp. 
Rom. iii. 30, v. 10, xv. 2 ; 2Cor. iii. 11), but the circumstance that ei¢ épyov 
daxoviag in its position between the first and third points would be unsuit- 
able.® Rather are cic épy. dvaxov. and ei¢ oikod. Tov cbu. Tov Xp. two defini- 
tions to édwxe, not parallel to xpic tov Katapt. Tév dyiov, but parallel to each 
other; so that we have thus, with Lachmann, Harless, Tischendorf, Bleek, to 
delete the comma after dyiwv. mpoic¢ Tov Katapt. Tov dyiwv Contains, namely, 
the aim for which Christ has given those designated in ver. 11 ei¢ épyov dtako- 
He has, on behalf of the full furnishing of 
the saints, given those teachers for the work of the ministry, for the edification of 
the body of Christ. The objection that the oixod. tov cou. is a yet higher aim 
than that of the catapr. trav dyiwv’ is incorrect ; since, on the contrary, the 


p yee s Ais — 
viac, €l¢ olKOdO/AV TOV C@MLaTOC TOV Xp. 


1 Theophylact. 

2 Ambrosiaster. 

3 Beza, Calvin, Zanchius, Grotius, Calix- 
tus, and others, including de Wette. 


6 Tf the three elements were parallel, Paul 
must logically have thus arranged them : 
(1) eis Epyov dtaxovias, (2) mpos TOY KaTapTLopOV 
Tov aylwov, (3) els oikoSonnv Tod owpaTos TOO 


4 See on Acts xx. 28, and Ch. F. Fritzsche, 
in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 42 ff. 

5 Chrysostom, Wolf, Bengel, 
Holzhausen, and others. 


Semler, 


Xpicrov,—advancing from the less definite 
to the more definite. 
7 De Wette. 


©HAP. Iy., 12. 455 
karapr. 7. ay. is the higher point, which is to be attained by the edification 
of the body of Christ, and consequently might be conceived of as aimed at 
therein.! Observe, withal, the expression of perfection : xatapr., and the ex- 
pression of development : oixodou4. Many others, including de Wette, have 
made the two clauses with ei¢ dependent on xarapricudr, so that the sense 
would be : ‘for the qualifying of believers that they may in each and every 
way themselves labor for the advancement and edification of the church.” * 
But (q@) dvaxovia, where the context is speaking of those engaged in the 
service of the church, always denotes the official service (Rom. xi. 13 ; 
2 Oor. iv. 1, vi. 3; comp. Acts vi. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 7 ff., ix. 12, a/.), and hence 
may not here be transmuted into the general notion of rendering service to, 
furthering (see especially 1 Pet. iv. 10). Andif we should in that connection 
retain the official notion of dvaxovia,* the training of the ayo to be teachers 
would be the thought resulting ; which would be inappropriate, because 
Paul regarded the Parousia as so near, and conceived of the yapicuara as 
continuing till then (see 1 Cor. xiii. 8), and therefore the thought that teachers 
had to be trained was remote from his mind. (}) But if he had merely 
meant to say : ‘‘to make the individual Christians jointly and severally 
meet for co-operating to the furtherance of the church,”* then tavrov 
would have been to rév dyiwv an essential element, which could not have been 
left out. Olshausen regards the two clauses introduced by eic as a partition 
of the katapticuic tov dyiwv : ‘‘ for the perfecting of the saints, and that, on 
the one hand, of those furnished with gifts of teaching for the fulfil- 
ment of the teacher’s office ; on the other hand, as regards the hearers, for 
the edifying of the church.” 
of the teaching labors mentioned in ver. 11 and consequently cannot in- 
clude the teachers themselves, and seeing, moreover, that the oixodouy rod 
oo. Tov Xp. Most appropriately describes the working of the teacher, so that 
no reader could, especially after eic épy. diax., conjecture that ei¢ oixod. K.7.A. 
was to apply to the hearers, inasmuch as no one could read the ‘‘on the one 
hand” and the ‘‘on the other” between the lines. Lastly, in quite an arbi- 
trary and erroneous way, Grotius, Michaelis, Koppe have even assumed 


Incorrectly, seeing that oi ayso. are the objects 


a trajection for cic épy. diak. mpd¢ Tov KaTapT. Tov ay. ei¢ OlK. TOV Ga". TOV Xp., 
in connection with which there have been very various explanations. ° — carap- 
riou6c, not elsewhere found in the N. T. (in Galen used of the adjustment of a 
dislocated limb), means, like xatdpriovc, 2 Cor. xill. 9, the putting of a person 
or thing into its perfect state, so that it is as it should be (aprvoc). Vulgate : 


1 Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 
2, p. 128. 

2 Meier; comp. Flatt, Schott, Rickert, 
Schenkel, and others, as already Erasmus. 
3 Flatt, Schott ; comp. also Zachariae. 

4 Riickert. 

®Grotius: ‘ut sanctis ministrent eos 
perficiendo magis et magis .. . ut ad eum 
modum illi quoque sancti apti fiant aedifi- 
candae eeclesiae, 7.¢., docendis aliis,”’ ‘‘ to 
minister to the saints by perfecting them 


more and more ...sothat in this way the 
saints also might become fit for edifying the 
church, #.é., by teaching others.’’ Michaelis : 
“that they should be able ministers of His 
church, in order that the saints might be- 
come more perfect, and His church, which is 
His body. might attain its due magnitude.” 
Koppe: ‘‘ éSwxe eis Epyov Staxovias (eis TO dua- 
Kovety Tots aycots, ‘to minister to the saints’), 
mpos To Kataptigew avTovs,’” — and eis oikod, 
k.T.A., is supposed to belong again to céwkxe, 


456 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

ad consummationem.' — Epyov diaxoviac] does not stand for the simple dcaxovia,? 
but means the work of the d.axovia, i.e., the labor which is performed in the 
ministerial office of the church. —eicpoixodouiv tov cdu. tov Xp.| for the up- 
building (= eic 70 oikodoueiv Td cu. Tov Xp., comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 12 ; Hph. iv. 
29) of the body of Christ. This is that gpyov ; and so an appositional more 
precise definition of that which precedes. But on that account to take épyov 
as a building*® is an undue anticipation. The expression oixodou7 tov caparo¢ 
is a blending of two figures, both of which were, from what precedes, pres- 
ent in the conception of the apostle (i. 28, ii. 20 ff., iii. 6),—the church as 
the body of Christ and as an edifice. Comp. ver. 16. 

Ver. 13. Goal, up to the contemplated attainment of which Christ has bestow- 
ed the different teachers, ver. 11, for the purpose specified in ver. 12.  wéype 
is put without av (comp. Mark xiii. 30) because the thought of conditioning 
circumstances is remote from the apostle’s mind. * — xaravrjowpuer] shall have 
attained to unity, 7.e., shall have reached it as the goal. Comp. Acts xxvi. 
7% + Phil. iii. 11 ; 2 Macc. vi. 14; Polyb. iv. 34; Diod. Sic. 1. 79, al. Some 
have found therein the coming together from different places,® or from differ- 
ent paths of error ;° but this is purely imported. — oi ravrec| the whole, in our 
totality, i.e., the collective body of Christians, not all men,’ Jews and Gentiles,® 
which is at variance with the use of the first person and with the preceding 
context (mpo¢ tov Katapticuov Tov dyiwv).—eic THY EvétnTa THO TioT. Kal THC 
éxtyv. Tov viov Tov Ocov] does not stand for éy rH évdryti x.7.A., ‘in the unity,” ® 
but is that which is to be attained with the catavr. The article is put with 
évér., because not any kind of unity is meant, but the definite unity, the future 
realization of which was the task of the teachers’ activity, the definite ideal 
which was to be realized by it. —rov viod tov Oecd is the object—accordant 
with their specific confession —not only of the éziyvworc, but also of the 
mioric (see on Rom. iii. 22; Gal. ii. 16). The goal then in question, to 
which the whole body of believers are to attain, is, that the riorve in the Son 
of God and the full knowledge ™ of the Son of God may be in all one and 
the same ; no longer—as before the attainment of this goal—varying in the 
individuals in proportion to the influences of different teaching (ver. 14). 
kal tHe éxcyv., however, is not to be taken as epexegesis of t#¢ miot.,” 
which is precluded not by «ai (see on Gal, iv, 16), but by the circumstance 





1 Comp. Morus, and see kcaraptig¢w, Luke 
vi. 40; 1 Cor. i. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Heb. xiii. 
21; 1 Pet. v.10. Translations like ad coag- 
mentationem, *‘ for union”’ (Beza), and ad in- 
staurationem, ‘‘ for renewal” (Erasmus), 
would need to be suggested by the context. 
With strange inappropriateness, Pelagius 
and Vatablus have referred the kataptiapos 
to the number of the Christians: “ad com- 
plendum numerum electorum,” “for com- 
pleting the number of the elect.” 

2 Koppe; see, on the other hand, Winer, 
p. 541 f.; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 117. 

3 Schellhorn in Wolf, Holzhausen. 

4 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 14 ff.; Hartung, 


Partikellehre, I. p. 291 ff. 

5 Vatablus, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and 
others. 

6 Michaelis. 

7 Jerome, Morus, and others. 

* Hammond, 

® Grotius. 

10 The sum of the confession, in which all 
are to become one in faich and knowledge, 
—not merely, as Bleek turns it, are to fee? 
themselves one in the communion of faith 
and of the knowledge of Christ. 

11 More ‘than yvoots ; see Valekenaer 27 
Luc. p. 14 f., and comp. on i. 17. 

12 Calvin, Calovius, and others. 


~ 


CHAP ATVs, Loe 457 


that there is no ground at all for the epexegetic view, and that riorie and 
éxiyvwoic are different notions, although the two are mutually related, the 
former as the necessary condition of the latter (Phil. iii. 9, 10 ; 1 John iv. 
16). Peculiar, but erroneous, is the view of Olshausen,! that the unity be- 
tween faith and knowledge is to be understood, and that the development, 
of which Paul speaks, consists in faith and knowledge becoming one, i.e., in 
the faith, with which the Christian life begins, becoming truly raised to 
knowledge. At variance with the context, since the connection speaks of 
the unity which is to combine the different individuals (ver. 8 ff.); and also 
opposed to the whole tenor of the apostle’s teaching elsewhere, inasmuch as 
faith itself after the Parousia is not to cease as such (be merged in knowl- 
edge), but is to abide (1 Cor. xiii. 13). [See Note XLIIL., p. 486.] —ei¢ dvdpa 
réAewov| concrete figurative apposition to what precedes : unto a full-grown 
man, sc., Shall have attained, ¢.e., shall have at length grown up, become ulti- 
mately developed into such an one.’ The state of the unity of the faith, 
etc., is thought of as the full maturity of manhood ; to which the more im- 
perfect state, wherein the évdryc is not yet attained (ver. 14), is opposed as 
a yet immature age of childhood. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. Paul does not 
say el¢ dvdpac TeAeiovc, because he looks upon the zdvzec¢ as one ethical person; 
comp. ii. 15 f. On réAecoc, of the maturity of manhood, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 
xiv. 20 ; Heb. v. 14.°— ei¢ pérpov «.r.2.] second apposition, for the more pre- 
cise definition of the former. The measure of the age of the fulness of Christ 
is the measure, which one has attained with the entrance upon that age to 
which the reception of the fulness of Christ is attached (sce the further ex- 
planation below), or, without a figure: the degree of the progressive Chris- 
tian development which conditions the reception of that fulness. The #Ackia 
in question, namely, is conceived of as the section of a dimension in space, 
beginning at a definite place, so that the #Acka is attained only after one 
has traversed the measured extent, whose terminal point is the entrance into 
the #ackia.* 7 AcKia, however, is not statwra (Luke xix. 3), as is supposed 
by Erasmus, Beza, Homberg, Grotius, Calixtus, Erasmus Schmid, Wolf, 
Bengel, Zachariae, Riickert, and others, which would be suitable only if the 
aviyp TéAevoc always had a definite measure of bodily size ; but it is equivalent 
to aetas, ‘‘age” (Matt. vi. 27), and that not, as it might in itself imply,® spe- 
cially aetas virilis, ‘‘ the age of manhood,” ® since, on the contrary, the more 


1 Whom Bisping has followed. 

2 The most involved way, in which the 
whole following passage can be taken, is to 
be found in Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, 
p. 129 ff. He begins, in spite of the absence 
of a particle (ody or S€), with eis avdpa téAcrov 
anew sentence, of which the verb is avéjow- 
ev, ver. 15; the latter is a self-encourage- 
ment to growth; but tva pnkeére x.7.A. is de- 
pendent on avéjowuer. In this way, in 
place of the simple evolution of the dis- 
course, such asis so specially characteris- 
tic of this Epistle, there is forced upon it an 
artificially-involved period, and there is in- 


troduced an exhortation as yet entirely 
foreign to the connection (only with ver. 17 
does Paul return to the hortatory address). 

3 And Bleek thereon; Plato, Legg. xi. 
p. 929 C, i. p. 643 D; Ken. Cy7. i. 2.4; Polyb. 
iv. 8. 1, v. 29. 2. Comp. also, for the figura- 
tive sense, Philo, de agric. I., p. 301, Leg. ad 
Caium, init. 

4 Comp. Hom. J/. xi. 225: émi p’ nBys épixv- 
S€0s, txeTo petpov, Od. xi. 317: ei nBys péTpov 
txoTo, XVili. 217. 

5 Dem. 17. 11; 1852. 11; Xen. Mem. iv. 2.3. 

6 So Morus, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, 
Holzhausen, Harless, and others. 


458 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

precise definition of the aetas, ‘‘age,” in itself indefinite, is only given by rob 

mAnp. tT. Xp., Which belongs to it (Winer, p. 172); so that qAcKia rod wAnp. tT. 

Xp. taken together characterizes the adult age of the Christians. [See Note 

XLIV., p. 486.]— Tod mAnypouatog tr. Xp.] defines the age which is meant, as 

that to which the fulness of Christ is peculiar, i.e., in which one receives the ful- 

ness of Christ. Before the attainment thereof, 7.e., before one has attained to 

this degree of Christian perfection, one has received, indeed, individual and 
partial charismatic endowment from Christ, but not yet the fulness, the 

whole largas copias, ‘‘ large supplies,” of gifts of grace, which Christ commu- 

nicates. A#pwoua is here, just as at iii. 19, not the church of Christ,’ which 
in i. 23 is doubtless so characterized, but not so named. This also in oppo- 

sition to Baur, p. 438, according to whom 70 wAgp. r. Xp. means : ‘‘ Christ’s 
being filled, or the contents with which Christ fills Himself, thus the 
church.” All explanations, moreover, which resolve zA#poyva into an ad- 
jectival notion (xAypwfeic) are arbitrary changes of the meaning of the word 
and of its expressive representation, whether this adjectival notion be con- 
nected with #Auciac? or with tov Xpicrov.? Grotius, doubtless, leaves rAgp. 

as a substantive ; but, at variance with linguistic usage, makes of it the be- 
ing full, and of +. Xp.,* the knowledge of Christ (‘‘ad eum staturae modum, 

qui est plenus Christi, é.e., cognitionis de Christo,” ‘‘to the measure of 
the stature that is full of Christ, z.e., of knowledge concerning Christ’’). 

Riickert takes rAfjpwya as perfection, and tov Xpiorov as genitive of the posses- 
sor. The meaning of the word he takes to be: ‘‘ We are to become just as 
perfect a man as Christ is.” Christ stands before us as the ideal of manly 
greatness and beauty, the church not yet grown to maturity, but destined to 
be like Him, as perfect as He is,—which is a figure of spiritual perfection 
and completion. But A#poua nowhere signifies perfection (reAecéryc), and 
nowhere is Christ set forth, even in a merely figurative way, as an ideal of 
manly greatness and beauty. He stands there as Head of His body (vv. 12, 

15, 16). As little, finally, as at ili. 19, does rAjpwoua tov Xp. here signify the 
Full gracious presence of Christ.» So also Matthies : ‘‘the fulness of the Di- 
vinity manifest in Christ: and through Him also embodied in the church.” 

Where the rAjpoua tov Xp. is communicated, there the full gracious presence 





1 Storr, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Baumgarten- 
Crusius. 


other hand: “Christus... in exemplum 
proponitur corpori suo mystico, ... ut, 


2So Luther: ‘Sof the perfect age of 
Christ.”», Comp. Castalio, Calvin (‘‘ plena 
actas,”’ ‘full age’’), Estius, Michaelis, and 
others; in which case tod Xpiotov has by 
some been taken sens mystico, ‘‘in a mys- 
tic sense,”’ of the church, by others (see 
Morus and Rosenmiiller) a@ quam Chr. nos 
ducit, “to which Christ leads us,’’ or the 
like, has been inserted. 

3 So most expositors, who take 7Arkia as 
stature. Itis explained: stature of the full- 
grown Christ, as to which Beza says, 
“Dicitur . .. Christus non in sese, sed in 
nobis adolescere,” ‘‘ Christ is said to grow, 
not in Himself, but in us;’’? Wolf, on the 


quemadmodum ipse qua homo se ostendit 
sapientia crescentem, prout annis et statura 
auctus fuit, ita fideles qaoque sensim incre- 
menta capiant in fide et cognitione, tandem- 
que junctim perfectum yirum Christo... 
similem sistunt,” ‘‘ Christ is set forth as an 
example to His mystical body . . . so that 
as He as man shows Himself growing in wis- 
dom as He grew in years and stature, so 
believers also might gradually receive ad- 
ditions in faith and knowledge, and at 
length jointly present the perfect man in 
Christ.” Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. 

4 So already Oecumenius. 

5 Harless ; comp. Holzhausen. 


CHAP, IV., 13: 459 
of Christ is in man’s heart (Rom. viii. 10; Gal. iii. 20), but 7d rAgjp. rod Xp. 
does not mean this. 


Remark 1.—The question whether the goal to be attained,indicated by Paulin 
ver. 13, is thought of by him as occurring in the temporal life, or only in the aidv 
néddov, ‘world to come,’’ is answered in the former sense by Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Thomas, Luther, Cameron, 
Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Flatt (who thinks of 
the last times of the church on earth), Riickert, Meier, de Wette, Schenkel ; in 
the latter sense,’ by Theodoret (rij¢ dé tehevéryTO¢ Ev TO péAAOVTE Bim TevéoueOa), 
Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, and others, including Holzhausen ; while Harless 
judges that Paul sets forth the goal as the goal of the life of Christian fellow- 
ship here upon earth, but says nothing on the question as to whether it is to 
be attained here or in the life to come ; as also Olshausen is of opinion that 
Paul had not even thought of the contrast between here below and there. But 
vy. 14, 15 show most distinctly that Paul thought of the goal in ver. 13 as set- 
ting in even before the Parousia ; and to this points also the comparison of iil. 
19, where, in substance, the same thing as is said at our passage by eic¢ pétpov 
HAuKkiag K.T.A., is expressed by iva rAnpwobyTe ei¢ av TO TAHPwuA TOV Oeov. ‘The 
development of the whole Christian community to the goal here described, Paul 
has thus thought of as near at hand, beyond doubt setting in (ver, 14) after the 
working of the antichristian principle preceding the Parousia,? as a conse- 
quence of this purifying process, and then the Parousia itself. We have conse- 
quently here a pointing to the state of unity of faith and knowledge,*® which 
sets in after the last storms tov éveorOro¢ ai@vog Tovnpov (Gal. i. 4), and then is 
at once followed by the consummation of the kingdom of Christ by the Pa- 
rousia.+ With this view 1 Cor. xiii. 11 is not at variance, where the time after 
is compared with the age of manhood; the same figure is rather employed 
by Paul to describe different future conditions, according as the course of the 
discussion demanded. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 20, iii. 1. On the other hand, the 
reason adduced for the reference to an earthly goal,> namely, that after the 
Parousia there is not faith, but sight, is invalid ; for see on 1 Cor. xiii. 13. 

Remark 2.—Mé yp: xararvtijowpev «.7.2. is not to be interpreted to the effect, 
that with the setting in of the unity, etc., the functions thought of in ver. 11 
would cease,—which rather will be the case only at the Parousia (1 Cor. xiii. 
8-10, iii. 13 ff.),—but the time of the unity, etc., is itself included in the (last) 
period of the duration of those churchly ministrations, so that only the Pa- 


1J™n fact, Fathers of the church (Augus- 
tine, de Civ. ii. 15; and see also Jerome, 
pit. P. 12) and scholastic writers (Anselm, 
Thomas) have referred our passage to the 
resurrection of the dead, of whom it is held 
to be here said, that they would all be rais- 
edin full manly age like Christ. Several 
(already Origen, as is asserted by Jerome, 
ad Pammach. Ep. 61, and afterwards Scotus) 
have even inferred that all women (with 
the exception of Mary) would arise of the 
male sex ! 

2 See on vi. 11; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 348 f. 

3 This émlyvwors is consequently not yet 


the perfect one, which occurs after the Pa- 
rousia, as it is described 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 

4 According to Schwegler, /.c. p. 381, our 
passage betrays the later author, who, tak- 
ing aretrospective view from the Montanis- 
tic standpoint, could conceive the thought 
of such a division into epochs. As though 
Paul himself, looking forward from jis 
view, as he expresses it, ¢.g., 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff., 
could not also have hoped for a speedy de- 
velopment unto unity of the faith, etc. ! 
The hypothesis of a ‘‘ certain time-interest” 
(Baur) was not needed for this purpose, 

> Calovius and Estius. 


460 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


rousia is their terminus. The distinction made by Tittmann, Synon. p. 33 f., 
between d&yp: and yéypi—which in fact receive merely from the connection the 
determination of the point, whether the ‘‘until’’ is to be taken imelusively or 
exclusively—is invented.! The distinction of the two words lies not in the 
signification, but in the original sensuous mode of conception which was 
associated with the until: ‘‘quum altera particula spatium illud, quoad 
aliquid pertinere diceretur, metiretur ex altitudine, altera vero ex longitudine,” 
‘since one particle would measure the space, as to which anything would be 
said to pertain, from its height, but the other from its length,” Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 225. 


Ver. 14. “Iva] cannot, at all events, introduce the design of the attained 
goal in ver. 13, in opposition to which abgjowyev, ver. 15, clearly testifies ; 
since, in the case of him who has already become the avijp réAewoc, the avgavery no 
longer has place. But it is also arbitrary to refer the affirmation of aim to 
vv. 11, 12,*as Harless would do,* who holds ver. 13 and ver. 14 ff. as co-ordi- 
nate, so that ver. 13 describes the final goal up to which the arrangement 
endures, and ver. 14 ff. the design of this same. That ver. 14 stands in a 
subordinate relation to ver. 13, is shown by the retaining of the same figure, 
as by iva itself, which is not preceded by another iva, or something similar, 
to which it would be parallel. If Paul had referred iva to vv. 11, 12, it 
would have been logically the most natural course to arrange the verses 
thus: vv. 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 16. The relation of our sentence expressive 
of aim to the preceding is rather as follows : while in ver. 13 there was ex- 
pressed the terminus ad quem, whichis appointed to the labor-task, contained 
in ver. 12, of the teachers given according to ver. 11 by Christ, there is now 
adduced that which is aimed at in the case with a view to the ultimate attain- 
ment of that terminus ad quem, namely, the change, which meanwhile, in 
accordance with that final aim, is to take place in the—till then still current 
—condition of the church. This change, divinely aimed at, is characterized 
ver. 14 in its negative nature (uyKéte x.7.A.), and ver. 15 in its positive nature 
(aAnGebtovtes dé K.7.A.). — pnxéte] no longer, as this is still at present the case. 
It points to the influence, which had at that time not yet ceased, of false 
teachers in the Christian church at large (see ver. 13). Of false teachers in 
Ephesus itself there is in our Epistle still no trace, although in Acts xx. 29 f. 
Paul had already expressed their future emergence. — vj] for, in order 
to attain to full maturity, one must first emerge out of the state of child- 
hood. What Paul here represents as vyridryc, namely, the dependence on 
false teachers, in connection with which the évéry¢ described in ver. 13 can- 
not set in, he himself expresses by cAvdwvilduevor, becoming tossed by 
waves (Isa. lvii. 20) and driven to and fro (as a ship abandoned to the break- 
ers), on which figurative representation of restless passive subjection to in- 
fluences, comp. Heb. xiii. 9 ; Jas. i. 6 ; Jude 12 f.; Josephus, Amdt. ix. 11. 
3; Aristaenet. i. 27 ; Dio Chrys. Orat. 32. —ravti dvéuw tie didacKar.|] TH 
tpory O& éupévav Kai avémove Exddece Tag dLaddpove SidacKadiac, ‘‘ continuing the 





1 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 308 f. Zanchius. 
2 Koppe, Flatt; comp. Michaelis and 3 Comp. Bleek. 


CHAP. Iv., 14. 461 
trope, he called differences of doctrine, winds,” Theophylact. Comp. Plut. 
de aud. poet. p. 28 D: py xavti Adyw rAdyiov, Gorep Tvebpatt, Tapad.odc EavTov, 
‘lest presenting himself obliquely to every word, as to a breeze.” The 
use of the article with didackaA. denotes the doctrine in abstracto, ‘‘ the 
abstract.” In the fact that now this, now that, is taught according to varying 
tendencies, there blows now this, now that, wind of doctrine. That Paul has 
JSalse teachers before his mind, is evident from the context. — év ry KuBeia 
sav avdpor.| instrumental: becoming tossed and driven to and fro by every 
wind of doctrine in virtue of the deceit of men. After didack. no comma is 
to be placed.’ «kveia, from ioc (eubus), a die, means properly dice-play ,; * 
then in a derived signification fraudulentia, ‘‘ deceit.” * Comp. the German 
Spiel. In this signification the word has also passed over to the language 
of the Rabbins §33p.* Others have explained it as: levitas, temeritas, 
‘“inconstancy, heedlessness,” >—which notion (like the German auf’s Spiel 
setzen: to put at stake) xvBebew really expresses in Plat. Prot. p. 314 A; 
Meleag. 73,°—but this is opposed to the context, which represents the false 
teachers as deceivers, — rav avOporov| Instead of being under the gracious 
influence of Christ (ver. 18), and thereby becoming strong and firm (comp. 
ili. 16 ff.), one is given up to the deceptive play of men !— év ravoupyia mpoc¢ 
THY peGodeiav tHe TAavyc| More precisely defining parallel to the preceding : 
by means of cunning, which is effectual for the machination of error. On 
mavoupyia, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 19 ; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3; Plat. Mener: p. 247 A. 
peodeia is preserved only here and vi. 11, but from the use of péfodoc? and 
peGodebw,* is not doubtful as to its signification. xAdvy means error, also at 
Matt. xxvii. 64 ; Rom. i. 27; 2 Pet. iii. 17, 11.18 ; Jas. v.20. Whether this 
has been brought about through the fault of lying and immorality ° must be 
decided by the context, as this must in reality be assumed to be the thought 
of the apostle in the present case, both from the connection and from the 
view which Paul had formed on the basis of experience (not, as Riickert 
pronounces, from a certain dogmatical defiance, which had remained with 
him as his weak side ; comp. on the other hand, on 2 Cor. xi. 12) with 
regard to the false teachers of his time (2 Cor. ii. 17, xi. 13 f.; Gal. ii. 4, 
vi. 12 ; Phil. ii. 21), although it is not involved in the word in itself. To 
take rAdavy as seduction” is not to be justified by linguistic usage, since it al- 
ways (also 2 Thess. ii. 11) means error, delusion, going astray ; as with the 
Greek writers also it never has that active meaning.—rAdvyc is genitivus sub- 
jecti, ‘‘a subjective genitive ;” the rAdvy, which peOodeies, is personified, in 
which case, however, it would be quite arbitrary to say, with Bengel: erroris, 
t.e., Satanae, ‘‘ of error, i.e., of Satan.” Compare rather the frequent personifi- 


1 Comp. Lachmann and Tischendorf. 

2 Plato, Phaedr. p. 274D; Xen. Mem. i. 3. 
2; Athen. x. p. 445 A. 

3 Arrian. pict. ii. 19, iii. 21, and see Oecu- 
menius. 

4See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 775; Buxtorf, 
Lex. Talm. p. 1984. 

5 Beza, Salmasius, 
others, 


Morus, Flatt, and 


6 See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 89. 

72 Mace. xiii. 18; Esth. xvi. 13; Plut. Mor. 
p. 176 A; Artem. iii. 25; Aristaen. i. 17. 

82 Sam. xix. 27; Aquila, Ex. xxi. 13; Diod. 
Sic. vii. 16; Charit. vii. 6. 

® Harless. 

10 Luther, Beza, and others, including 
Riickert, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette. 


462 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

cations of dyapria, dixavoctvn (Rom. vi. 16 ff., a/.), and the like. The article 
is not necessary before zpd¢ t. peOod.,* since tavovpy. has no article ; hence 
no reason whatever exists for attaching pic 7. wefod. «.7.2., with Rickert, to 
the participle (‘‘driven about... according to the several arts of seduc- 
tion”), by which év ravovpy. is singularly isolated. —We may add that, 
when it is said that the fluctuation between different doctrinal opinions, 
here presupposed as a matter of fact, is not suitable to the apostolic age,” 
too much is asserted. Paul had experienced enough of this sort of waver- 
ing : all his Epistles testify of it. 

Ver. 15. Still connected with iva, ver. 14. — dé] after the negative prota- 
sis: on the other hand, yet doubtless.* In order that we... on the other 
hand, confessing the truth, may grow in love, etc. adhere means nothing 
else than in Gal. iv. 6, verwm dicere, ‘‘to speak the truth,” opposite of 
wetdecbat,* which here, as contrast to the repidépecbar ravti avéuw tHe didaoc- 
kadiac, is the confession of the evangelic adjfera. év ayary belongs to aigsqo.,° 
the ethical element of which it denotes ; for love (to the brethren) is the 
sphere, apart from which the growth of the mystic body, whose members are 
held together by love,® does not take place, iii. 18 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12 ff., comp. 
xiii. 1. With how great weight is this element here placed at the begin- 
ning and ver. 16 at the end ; and how definitely is the hint already thereby 
given to take év ayary together with aigjo., in keeping with its connection 
in ver. 16 ! Others, nevertheless, connect it with adyfebovrec, in doing which 
some explain, yet not without diversities in specifying the sense,’ veritatem 
sectantes cum caritate, ‘‘ striving after truth with love ;”* others : sincere dili- 
gentes, ‘‘ sincerely loving.” ® But neither of these interpretations is to be 
linguistically justified, since aAmGetey never means to strive after truth, or to 
hold fast the truth, to possess the truth, or the like, but always to speak the 
truth (comp. also Prov. xxi. 38; Ecclus. xxxi. 4), to which, likewise, the 
sense of to verify, to prove as true, found e.g. in Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 25, Isa. 
xliv. 26, may be traced back. Against the second of these interpretations” 
there is also in particular the context, seeing that sincere love would bea quite 
unsuitable contrast to the spiritual immaturity given up to the false teachers, 
which is described ver. 14. If, however, we should seek to connect aAnfei- 
ew in the correct sense of verwm dicere, ‘‘to speak the truth,” with év ayary 
(confessing the truth in love), then only the love not towards others in gen- 


1 Tn opposition to Riickert. 

2 Baur, p. 448. 

3 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171 f.; Klotz, 
ad Devar. p. 360 f. 

4 Comp. Xen. Andb. i. 7. 18, iv. 4.15; Mem. 
i. 15; Plat. Demod. p. 383 C ; Phil. Leg. Alleg. 
II. p. 84 A; de resip. Noé, p. 280 E. 

5 Comp. already Lucifer: ‘‘ crescamus in 
caritate,” “let us grow in love.” 

6 Comp. Chrysostom. 

7 Calvin and most expositors: “ veritatis 
studio adjungere etiam mutuae communi- 
cationis studium, ut placide simul profi- 
ciant,” ‘‘to the pursuit of truth to add also 


the pursuit of mutual communication, that 
they may advance together calmly.’ Cas- 
talio, Bullinger, Riickert: ‘“‘to hold fast to 
the truth received and investigated ... so 
that . . . our firmness may be tempered by 
a friendly consideration for the weaker.” 

8 Valla, Erasmus, Calvin, Bullinger, Calo- 
vius, Wolf, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, 
Stolz, Flatt, Riickert, Bleek, de Wette? e¢ 
al. 

® Luther, Bucer, Grotius, Loesner, Morus, 
et al.; comp. also Beza and Matthies. 

10 Luther, ete. 


CHAP. IV:, 15. 463 
eral,’ but towards those of another confession, could be meant ; and this too, 
would here, where the latter are described as deceptive teachers of error, 
be at variance with the context. MHarless, it is true, rightly connects év 
ayaryn with avéfo., but explains aAyfetovrec : being true in evangelical disposi- 
tion, and then brings év ayary eic airév together. Against this may be urged, 
not indeed the hyperbaton,® but the fact that a276. is not taken in accord- 
ance with correct linguistic usage, and that the definition ‘“‘in evangelical 
disposition,” is imported at variance with the context (since we have here a 
contrast not to the ravovpyia of the false teachers, but to the childish zepidé- 
pecdar ravti avéu k.T.A.) ; as also that the corresponding év aydry of ver. 16 
shows that év aydry in ver. 15 does not mean love to Christ. Wrongly also 
Baumgarten-Crusius, although connecting with aié., renders : possessing the 
truth. — avEjowpev| dependent on iva, ver. 14, is not to be taken, according 
to classic usage, transitively (1 Cor. ili. 6 f. ; 2 Cor. ix. 10), as Valla, Mol- 
denhauer, and others held, but intransitively (comp. ii. 21, and see Wet- 
stein, I. p. 335), to grow ; for, in keeping with the figure iva pnkéte Guev 
vriot, it represents the progressive development of the Christian life. Comp. 
ver. 16. Bengel aptly observes : ‘‘haec aiEyoie . . . media est inter in- 
Jfantes et virum,” ‘‘this increase is between childhood and manhood.” 
—eic aitév] in reference to Him. Christ is indeed the Head of the body, 
the growth of the members of which thus stands in constant relation 
to Christ, can never take place apart from relation to Him as determining 
and regulating it, to whom the course of the development must harmo- 
niously correspond. The commentary to ecic airév is furnished by the fol- 
lowing é¢ ob wav 76 cOma x.7.2. ; the relation of the growth tothe head, which 
is expressed in an ascending direction by eic¢ airéy, is expressed ina descend- 
ing direction by é ov.° The sense: into the resemblance of Christ,* is op- 
posed to the context (since Christ is thought of as head) ; as also the expla- 
nation of Koppe and Holzhausen :5 ‘‘ to grow up in Him,” is inappropriate, 
since the body as little grows up to the head, or reaches forth to the head,® 
as it grows into the head.” Others have taken cic for év,* but this was a 
mistaken make-shift, whether it was explained with Cornelius a Lapide : 
‘* Christi capitis virtute et influau,” ‘by the virtue and influence of Christ 
as Head,” or even with Grotius : ‘‘ ipsius cognitione,” ‘‘by his knowledge.” 
— 7a ravra] is rightly explained : in all points, in every respect (comp. 1 Cor. 
ix. 25, x. 33, xi. 2, and see on Acts xx. 35), in which case, however, the ar- 
ticle has not generally been attended to.* Harless refers it to the previously 


1 This in opposition to Hofmann. 
2 Bernhardy, p. 460; Kiihner, II. p. 627 f. 
3 This treating of eis avréy and (ver. 16) é& 


junction of év (6:4) and eis, Col. i. 16 f. 
4 Zanchius and others. 
5 Comp. de Wette and Bleek. 


ov as parallel is not “ paradoxical’’ (de 6 Hofmann. 
Wette), but represents the relation as it is. 7 In opposition to Matthies : ‘‘ 70 grow *n- 
—Christ the goal and source of the develop- to Him, i.e... . ever more deeply to be- 


ment of life in the church, 7.é., to Christ 
withal is directed the whole aim which de- 
termines this development, and from Christ 
proceeds all endowment, by which it is ren- 
dered possible and takes place. Analogous, 
and just as little paradoxical, is the con- 


come absorbed into His infinitely true and 
holy nature. 

8 Luther, in the original editions, has not : 
‘an dem das Haupt ist,” but ‘‘an den, der 
das Haupt ist.” 

® So still Meier and Matthies. 


464 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


mentioned évérye in its contrast to the wavering of unsettled knowledge. 
But since the évdzy¢ of ver. 12 appears as the goal to be attained by the 
growth, and since, moreover, not several things (a plurality) are thereby 
denoted, to which the plural ra xdvra might relate, this view cannot appear 
in keeping with the context. The explanation which most naturally sug- 
gests itself is : in all the points of our growth, wherein the emphasis re- 
mains upon eic aizév. Our growth shall, in all points in which we grow, 
proceed in relation to Him, who is the Head, etc. Koppe, Wahl, and Holz- 
hausen regard ra ravra as nominative, explaining it of all the members. But 
in that case oi ravtec must have been written. Comp. ver. 13. —6¢ éorw 7 
Kegaay Xpiotéc] significant more precise definition and very emphatic nam- 
ing of the subject intended by éi¢ airév, although this subject was self-evi- 
dent. Paul did not write roy Xpiorév (as apposition to aizév), but in accord- 
ance with the usual Greek construction he drew the apposition into the ac- 
cessory clause.1. According to de Wette, 6 Xp. is merely to serve for facili- 
tating the construction with the following é& oi, and thus to have merely a 
formal significance. But of such a facilitating there was no need whatever. 

Ver. 16. Harmony of what is said, ver. 15, for all individuals, with the 
objective relation of Christ to the whole as the organism growing by way 
of unity out of Christ. Comp. Col. ii. 19. — From whom the whole body, be- 
coming jitly framed together and compacted (becomes compacted and), by means 
of each sensation of the supply (of Christ), according to an operation propor- 
tionate to the measure of each several part, bringeth about the growth of the 
body, to the edifying of itself in love. —é£ ov] is equivalent neither to eic¢ év,? 
nor to per quem, ‘‘ through whom,” ? but denotes the ceusal going forth, as 
Col. Uc. ; 1 Cor. vili. 6; 2 Cor. v. 1, xiii. 4; and frequently.4— may ro 
coua] wav has the emphasis: the whole body, thus no member being ex- 
cepted ; it glances back to oi rdvtec, ver. 13. — cuvappor. x. ovuBiBat.] Pres- 
ent participle, expressing what was continuously in actu, ‘‘in act.” As to 
cuvapuoaA., comp. On li. 21 ; cvueBato is employed by classical writers of 
men or of single parts of things, which one brings together into an alliance, 
to reconciliation, to a unity,* and might be employed here the more aptly, 
inasmuch as the single parts of which the collective mass designated by 
nav TO cua Consists, are the different Christian individuals. <A distinction 
in the notion of the two words, such as is asserted by Bengel (cvvappod. de- 
notes the jitting together, and ovufi3. the fastening together) and Grotius 
(the latter denotes a closer union than the former), is arbitrarily assumed. 
The distinction consists only in this, that cvvapuoA. corresponds to the figure, 
and ovuB.8. to the thing figuratively represented. With regard to the for- 
mer, observe that dpyovia also, with the Greeks often denotes the harmonious 
relation of unity between the body and its parts.°— The verb to é£ ob wav 76 


1See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 41 A: 2 Koppe. 
eUpyicer TOUS WS GANSas SiKacTds, olmEp Kai dé- 3 Morus, Flatt, Holzhausen. 
yovTar exec Stkagery Mivws te kai “Paddjsavidtos 4 See Bernhardy, p. 225. 
kat Aiakos. Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 771. Comp. 5 Herod i. 74; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Plato, Rep. 


2Cor. x. 18; Winer, p. 469; Ellendt, Zez. p. 504 A; comp. Col. ii. 2. 
Soph. I. p. 868. ® See Jacobs, Delect. epigr. vii. 89. 


4G5 


oO 


CHAP. Iv:, 16: 


coua ovvapp. Kk. cvufi3. is rAv abEgow Tod cb. rovetrat, in Which the repetition 
of tov cémaroc is neither negligence ' nor a Hebraism,* but is introduced for 
the sake of perspicuity on account of the intervening definitions, as is often 
the case with classical writers. * — dca raone adje tie éexcyopyny.| belongs not to 
ovubiBat. (so ordinarily), to which connection the erroneous interpretation 
of dof as band (see below) led, but to -jv absjow roceizat.* It is not the union 
that is brought about by the agai rie éxeyopny., but the growth, inasmuch as 
Christ, from whom as Head the union proceeds, bestows the ércyopyyia for 
the growth. dof is usually explained junctura, “joining,” * commissura, 
means of connection, joint, and the like. But without any support from lin- 
guistic usage. It may signify ® contact, also holding fast, adhesion, and the 
like,’ but it never means vincwlum, ‘‘ bond” (cvvae7). Rightly Chrysostom 
and Theodoret have already explained it by aiofyouc, feeling, perception.® 
Hofmann ® prefers the signification : contact, and understands the connection 
of the several parts of the body, whereby the one supplies to the other that 
which is necessary to growth, which supply in the case of the recipient 
takes place by means of contact with it. In this way raca ay rig éxeyopry. 
would be every contact which serves for supplying, and the éxiyeonyia would 
be the communication of the requisites for growth by one part of the body to 
the other. But the former Paul would have very indistinctly expressed by 
the mere genitive (instead of ric éxvyop. he might have written rice mpoc tiv 
éxcyopyyaiv), and the latter is imported, since the reader after é& od could 
only understand the éxcyopyyia proceeding from Christ. If we were to take 
dof in the sense of contact, the above explanation of Oecumenius would 
be the simplest (every contact, which the body experiences through the 
éxiyopnyia of Christ) ; but there may be urged against it, that the expres- 
sion instead of the mere did rdone éxeyopyyiac would be only diffuse and 
circumstantial without special reason, while the expression : 
the éxcyopnyia,” very appropriately points to the growth through the influ- 
ence of Christ from within outward. [See Note XLY., p. 486.]— ric 
éxtyopny.| Genit. objecti, ‘‘ objective genitive :” every feeling in which the 
supply is perceived, experienced. What supply is meant by the éxcyopyyia 
with the article becomes certain from the context, namely, that which is 
afforded by Christ (through the Holy Spirit), ¢.e., the influence of Christ, by 


‘¢ sensation of 


1 Riickert. um auxilium, ‘handle for mutual aid.”” An 


2 Grotius. 

3 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. XXXv.3 
Kriiger, Anad. p. 27; Ellendt, ad Arrian, 
Eap. Al. i. 55. 

4 Zanchius, Bengel, and others. 

5 Vulgate. 

6 As in Lucian, de luctu 9,and often in 
Plutarch. 

7 Tn virtue of this signification there was 
denoted by a7 also the fine sand with 
which the oiled athletes sprinkled each oth- 
er, in order to be able to take a firm grasp 
(see Steph. Thesaur. s.v.). Thence Bengel 
derives the interpretation: ansae ad mutu- 


30 


arbitrary abstraction from a conception en- 
tirely foreign to the context. Comp. Au- 
gustine, de civ. Dei, xxii. 18: “‘tactum sub- 
ministrationis,” “contact for supply,” and 
see Oecumenius : 7 avd TOU XpioTov katiovca 
mvevpaticy Suvanis EvOS EKATTOV MEAODUS 
avrtov anxtopnpeéevyn, ‘the spiritual power 
coming from Christ, laying hold of each one 
of His members.” 

8 See Plato, Locr. p. 100 D, E; Pol. vii. 
p. 523 E; and the passages in Wetstein. So 
also Col. ii. 19. 

» Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 182. 


466 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


which He supplies to His body the powers of life and development necessary 
to a growth in keeping with its destiny (ér-yopyyel, 2 Cor. ix. 10 5eG@ak 
iii. 5, evhibet, ‘presents ;” the substantive occurs only further at Phil, tang: 
not in Greek writers). Those who understand a@7 as bond, take rig ém- 
yopyy., partly correctly in this same sense,‘ save that they explain the geni- 
tive as a genitive of apposition, partly ° of the reciprocal service-rendering of 
the members,—an explanation which,* originating in the erroneous interpre- . 
tation of df, introduces into the context something heterogeneous. Beza 
transmutes rjc éxvyopny. into an unmeaning participle : ‘per omnes suppedi- 
tatas commissuras,” ‘‘ through all supplied joints.” — kar’ évépy. év pétpy évdg 





éx. pép.| belongs neither to rig émeyopry.,* in which case, it is true, the non- 
repetition of the article might be justified on the ground of a blending of 7 
émeyopyyla Kar’ évépyerav x.7.2. into one conception, but on the other hand may 
be urged the fact that év wérpp x.7.2., as a specification of measure, points of 
itself to the growth, not to the éxcyopyyia ; nor to ovu3:Bat.,° to which even 
what precedes did not belong, but : after Paul has stated whereby the body 
grows (dia wdc. doge THe éxxopny.), he now also adds the relation in which it 
brings about its growth, namely, according to an efficacy in keeping with the 
measure of each several part, i.e., so that the growing body in its growth fol- 
lows an activity of development in keeping with the measure peculiar to each 
several part of the body,—consequently no disproportioned monstrous growth 
results, but one which is pursuant to proportion, adapted to the varied meas- 
ure of the several parts (so that, e.g., the hand does not grow disproportion- 
ately larger than the foot, etc.). Without figure: From Christ the church 
accomplishes its progressive development according to an efficacy, which is 
not equal in all individuals, but appropriate to the degree of development 
appointed for each several individual. Riickert and Bretschneider take xa7’ 
évépyerav adverbially : after a powerful manner. But évépyeca in itself does 
not denote powerful working, but efficacy, activity in general, so that it 
would need a more precise definition for the sense supposed (i. 19, iii. 7 ; 
Phil. iii. 21 ; Col. i. 20, ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11). — év pétpw] according to 
measure, pro mensura; see Bernhardy, p. 211 ; Winer, p. 345. —pépove] is 
held by Harless to denote the several parts, which again in their turn ap- 
pear as having the control of the other members (pastors, etc., ver. 11). Against 
this is évdc éxdorov. It denotes, according to the context, in contradistinc- 
tion to the zhole of the body each part of the body, whether this part may be 
a whole member or in turn only a portion of a member (comp. Luke xi. 36), 
and is hence of wider meaning than pédovc. —aifqjow] In the N. T. only 
further at Col. it. 19, often with Greek writers,® also 2 Mace. v. 16. — 
ro.eitar| produces for itself (sibi), hence the middle; comp. subsequently eic 





1 Riickert, Harless, Olshausen. 

2So Luther and most expositors, includ- 
ing Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
de Wette. 

3JIn which case the genitive tis émy. 
would have to be taken, with Grotius, de 
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, as 


genitive of definition (on behalf of). But see 
above, in opposition to Hofmann. 

4 Koppe, Meier, de Wette, and many. 

5 Harless [and Engelhardt]. 

6 More classic, however, is avé. See 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. vi. p. 509 B. 


CHAP, Iv.; 17 467 
oixodou. éavtov. —The sense: for the perfecting of itself (aim of ryv absyo. 
moveitat), is expressed, as at ver. 12, in another, dissimilar, but likewise very 
familiar figure, by eic¢ oixod. éavtov. — év ayary]| Love of all one to another is 
the ethical sphere, within which the aiénow roveicbar ei¢ oixod. éavtov on the 
part of the whole body proceeds—outside of which this cannot take place. 
Comp. ver. 15. On account of ver. 15, the connection with ry abfjow 
Toleitae cic oikod. éavrov is More in keeping with the context than the usual 
one with the mere eic¢ olxod. éavtov. — We may add, that the mode of regard- 
ing the church in our passage is not ‘‘ genuinely Gnostic,” as Baur pro- 
nounces, but genuinely Pauline. Comp. especially 1 Cor. xii. 14-27. 

Ver. 17. That oiv, like the Latin ergo, here resumes ver. 1,' is rightly as- 
sumed ; since the exhortation begun vv. 1-3 is really interrupted by the 
digression, vv. 4-16, and the duty now following pyxéte reperareiv x.7.4., 18 
but the negative side of the afiw¢e repitatgjoa x.t.A. of ver. 1. Theodoret 
aptly observes : mddw avédaBe ti¢ maparvécewe 76 Tpootpwov, ‘‘ again he recurred 
to the beginning of the exhortation.” —roiro] to be referred forwards: 
What follows then (now to return to my exhortations) I say and asseverate, etc. 
—papripoua does not signify obsecro, ‘‘ I beseech,” but I testify, i.e., I assever- 
ate, aver. See on Gal. v. 3. 
and in 2éyw the notion of exhortation and precept, there is no need of supply- 
ing deiv to the following infinitive.? — év xvpiw] not per Dominum, ‘‘ by the 
Lord,” * which would be zpéc¢ xvpiov (comp. on Rom. ix. 1), and with vapripopac 
would have to be denoted by rév xipiov ;* but rather, as at Rom. ix. 1, 
1 Thess. iv. 1 : in the Lord, so that Paul expresses that not in respect of his 
own individuality does he speak and aver, but that Christ withal is the ele- 
ment, in which his thinking and willing moves,—through which, therefore, 


Since, however, there lies in this expression 


the Aéyw and waprip. has its distinctively Christian character. — pjxéte] after 
that ye, from being Gentiles, have become Christians. — Kaféc Kai 7a Avira 
éOvy x.7.A.| The xai has its reference in the former walk of the readers. 
These are no longer to have such a walk, as was, like their previous walk, 
that also of the other, i.e., the still unconverted (comp. ii. 3 ; 1 Thess. iv. 
13) Gentiles. —ra Aovxa] for the readers, although Christians, belonged 
nationally to the category of Gentiles. — év paraiétyte Tob vod¢g avtév] (not 
avrév) is the subjective sphere, in which the walk of the other Gentiles takes 
place, namely, in nothingness (truthlessness) of their thinking and willing 
(votc), which, however, neither denotes, after the Hebrew Pant idol-worship,* 
nor is it to be referred, with Grotius, especially to the philosophers (comp. 
1 Cor. iii. 20), but is to be understood of the whole intellectual and moral char- 
acter (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18) of heathenism, in which the rational and moral 


principle (the vovc) is theoretically 


1 Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 22 f.: Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 718. 

2 See Kiihner, 7@ Xen. Mem. ii. 2.1; Butt- 
mann, newt. Gr. p. 235 [E. T. 273]; also 
Heind. ad Plat. Prot. p. 346 B. 

3 Theodoret : 075 paprupe yap dnote TS Kupip 
tavta Aéyw, *‘He says, ‘I say this with the 
Lord as witness ;’’ so already Chrysostom 


and practically estranged from the 


and most expositors, including Koppe, 
Flatt, Olshausen. 

4T call the Lord to witness, Plat. Phil. 
p. 12 B; Eur. Phoen. 629; Soph. Qed. Col. 
817. 

5 See, in opposition to this, Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. i. 21. 


465 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
truth (ver. 18), and subject to error and the service of sin (ver. 19). We 
may add, that the waraéry¢ is not an inborn one," but (Rom. vii. 7 ff.) one 
that has come to pass, although it has come to pass ¢ice: (11. 3). Comp. Rom, 
Dod wale Alp. 
Ver. 18 exhibits the ground of the fact, that the Gentiles walk év pataséryre 
tov vooc avt@v, Which ground is twofold according to the twofold power 
belonging to the voic, the intelligent and the practical. To the former éoxotapé- 
vot relates (see the critical remarks), to the latter andi. r. Come Tr. Oeod 3 since 
they are darkened* in respect of their exercise of thinking and willing (d.avoia, 
comp. Luke i. 51; Col. i. 21; 1 Pet. i. 18; 1 John v. 20) ; estranged from 
the life of God. —éoxor. ... dvte¢ is to be taken together,* since, if dvrec 
arnadorp. are joined,* the logical and formal parallelism is disturbed, inas- 
much as then éoxor. t7 deavoia would be merely predicate and éyte¢ amnAAorp. 
specifying the reason (subordinate to the former), and the emphatic prefix- 
ing of the two perfect participles, as brought into prominence by our punc- 
tuation, would go fornothing. And that the second clause does not specify 
the reason, why the darkening has come over the minds of the Gentiles,® is 
clear from the following da ty dyvoiav x.7.A., Wherein, conversely, the 
ignorance is indicated as the cause of the estrangement from God. Riickert, 
moreover, thinks that, according to our punctuation, évree would stand 
before rh Siavoia ; but this is groundless, since éoxor. rj diavoia is conceived 
of together.° —aznhiorp.] See on ii. 12, and, concerning the constructio Kara 
civeowvy, Buttmann, newt. Gram. pp. 114, 242 [E. T. 281]. — rie Came rod Ccow| 
Srom the life of God, does not admit of any explanation, according to which 
Com would be life-walk, which it never means in the N. T., not even in 
2 Pet. i. 3.7. Hence not : the life pleasing to God,* but, as Luther aptly ren- 
“the life, which is from God.” The genitive is the genitive originis, 
“of origin” (comp. dcxaocivy Oecd, Rom. i. 17, and see Winer, p. 167 f.), 
and (wf is the counterpart of @dvaroc, so that it is to be understood as : 
‘“tota vita spiritualis, quae in hoe seculo per fidem et justitiam inchoatur 
et in futura beatitudine perficitur, quae tota peculiariter vita Dei est, qua- 
tenus a Deo per gratiam datur,” ‘‘the entire spiritual life, which is begun 
in this world through faith and righteousness, and perfected in future 
blessedness, which entire life is peculiarly God’s, as it is given by God 
through grace,” Estius.° It is at allevents the life of Christian regeneration, 
which is wrought by God in believers through the Spirit (Rom. viii. 2) ;”° 
while the Gentiles are by their heathen nature alien to this divine life. 


ders : 


1 Zanchius, Calovius, and others ; comp. 
Calvin. 

2 Comp. Joseph. Anti. ix. 4.3; the oppo- 
site : dwrigew thy Scavoray, Vili, 5. 3. 

3Clem. Al. Protrep. ix. p. 69, Potter’; 
Theodoret, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, 
Harless, de Wette. 

4Beza and many, including Riickert, 
Meier, Matthies, Scholz. 

° In opposition to Rickert. 

®§ Comp. Herod. i. 35: ov cadapds xeipas eur, 
Xen. Ages. xi. 10: mpastatos didos dv, 


7 Especially instructive for the distinction 
of the notion gw from that of life-valk, is 
Gal. v. 25. 

® Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, 
and others; comp. Theodore, Theophy- 
lact, Grotius, and Flatt. 

®Comp. Calvin and Cajetanus. 

10 This divine making alive does not coin- 
cide with justification, but the latter is the 
actus judicialis, ‘‘ judicial act,” of God that 
precedes the former. Comp. especially 
Rom. viii. 10: ¢wy dca Scxaroovyynr. 


OHAP IVs, 10: 469 


This in opposition to Harless, who understands it as the estrangement from 
the life and light of the dédyog in the world (John i. 3). Paul in fact is speak- 
ing of the Gentiles of that time (not of those who have lived in the time 
before Christ), in their contrast to the Christians (ver. 17) as persons who 
were partakers of divine life through the wafcyyevecia (comp. ii. 5 ; Rom. vi. 
4). Various elements are mixed up by Beza : ‘‘ vitam illam, qua Deus vivit 
in suis quamque praecipit et approbat,” ‘‘the life whereby God lives in His 
own people, and which He commands and approves ;” and Olshausen : 
“‘the life, which God Himself is and has, and which pertains to the creature 
so long as it remains in fellowship with God.” — dia tiv ayvorav . . . Kapdiag 
abrav] on account of, etc. ; the cause of this estrangement of the Gentiles 
from the divine life is the ignorance which is in them through hardening 
of heart, consequently due to their own fault. dvd tr. rap. 7. x. attaches itself 
to rv obcav év airoic, and is consequently subordinated to the preceding é:a 
T. dyvovav t. ovo. tv ait. Usually dua... dud are regarded as co-ordinate ele- 
ments ; and indeed, according to Harless and Olshausen, who are followed 
by de Wette, this twofold specification of reason has reference not merely to 
aryaAdorp. t. 6. 7. O., but also to éoxor. 7H diavoia dvtec, in which case Olshau- 
sen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Schenkel! assume that did tiv ayvorav 
k.T.A. corresponds to éoxor. x.7.A., and then dra r7v Topwow k.T.A. to arnAnorp. 
r.¢.7.0. The dyvora, however, cannot be the cause, but only the consequence 
of écKxor. TH diavoia, since ayvora (used by Paul only here, but ayvoeivy occurs 
frequently) is not dulness of the higher faculty of cognition,” but nothing else 
than ignorance (Acts iii. 17, xvii. 30 ; 1 Pet. i. 14). The Gentiles were not 
darkened on account of their ignorance, seeing that in fact ignorance is not 
inaccessible to the light, as the example of all converted Gentiles shows ; but 
their being estranged from the life of God was occasioned by their ignorance, 
and, indeed, by their ignorance for which they were to blame on account of 
hardening of heart. Accordingly, the commas after Ocov and airoic are to be 
deleted. Meier is quite wrong in holding that the ignorant are the Gen- 
tiles, and the hardened the Jews. Paul speaks only of the Gentiles. 
[See Note XLVI., p. 486.] —7r7v oicay év airtoic] not: quae vis innata est, 
‘‘ which is innate to them,” nor yet said in contrast to external occasions, * 
which is not at all implied in the context, but : because Paul wished to 
annex the cause of the dyvora, he has not put da ry ayvorav abt Ov, but, in 
order to procure the means of annexation, has employed the participial 
expression paraphrasing the airy : ty obcav év abroic. This expression con- 
firms the view that the second did is subordinate to the first. 

Ver. 19. The estrangement of the Gentiles from the divine life, indicated 
in ver. 18, is now more precisely proved in conformity with experience : 
oirwec, quippe qui, etc.: being such as, void of feeling, have given themselves over 
to lasciviousness. — arnaynrérec| avaicbytor yevduevor, ‘‘ being senseless,” Hesy- 
chius. The ‘“ verbum significantissimum,” ‘‘a most significant word,” 4 from 
diyeiv and a7zé, is equivalent to dedolere, to cease to feel pain, then to be 


1Comp. Grotius and Bengel. 3 Harless. 
2 Rickert. 4 Bengel. 


470 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

void of feeling, whether there be meant by it the apathy of intelligence, or the 

state of despair, or, as here, the moral indolence, in which one has ceased to 

feel reproaches of conscience,’ consequently the securitas carnalis, *‘ carnal 

security ;” see Wetstein, and also Matthiae, ed. min. én loc. The explana- 

tion having despaired* imports a special definition of the meaning without 
warrant from the context, but is found already in Syr. Arm. Vulg. | 
It. Ambrosiaster, and from it has arisen the reading azyAriéteg (D EF G 
have ddyArcx.), which probably already those vss. followed. — éavroic] 

with deterrent emphasis. To bring into prominence what was done on 
the part of their own freedom, was here in accordance with the paraenetie 
aim. It is otherwise put at Rom. i. 24: wapéduxev aitoig 6 Osdc. The 
two modes of regarding the matter are not contrary to one another, 

but go side by side (see on Rom. i. 24) ; and according to the respective 
aims and connection of the discourse, both have their warrant and their 
full truth. —7 dcedyeia] personified. It is to be understood of sensual 
lasciviousness (comp. on Rom. xiii. 13; 2 Cor xii. 21; Gal. v. 19), as, 

subsequently, dxafapciac of sensual filthiness (comp. Rom. i. 24 ; 2 Cor. 

xii. 21; Gal. v. 19), not of ethical wantonness and impurity generally,* 
since the rieovetia connected with it is likewise a special vice, as indeed, on 
the other hand (Rom. i. 24 ; comp. ver. 29 and Col. iii. 5), unchastity ap- 

pears as the first and chief vice of the Gentiles. — cic épyaciay axafapaiac raanc | 

aim of this self-surrender to the acéAyera (comp. Rom. vi. 19) : for the prose- 

cution of every uneleanness, in order to practise every sort of uncleanness. * 

Koppe takes it as trade (Acts. xvi. 16, xix. 19, xxiv. 29). But could the 

trade of prostitution ® be thus generally predicated with truth of the Gen- 

tiles? This at the same time tells in opposition to the explanation followed 

by Grotius, Bengel, Stolz, Koppe, Flatt, and Meier, of the év rieovetia that 

follows as quaestus ex impudicitia, ‘‘ profit from lewdness” (on the thing 

itself, see Aristaen. i. 14). In fact, év rieoveéia adds to the vice of sensuality 

the other chief vice of the heathen, and signifies: with covetousness. The 

explanations : with unsatiableness,® or certatim, ‘‘ emulously,”” or with haugh- 

tiness,® or in gluttony,*® are all of them at variance with linguistic usage, 


1“ Homines a Deo relictisopita conscien- 
tia, extincto divini judicii timore, amisso 
denique sensu tanquam attoniti, belluino 
impetu se ad omnem turpitudinem proji- 
ciunt,” ‘“‘men abandoned of God, with 
conscience stupefied, with the fear of 
divine judgment extinguished, and finally 
with sensibility lost, as though struck by 
lightning, with bestial impulse cast them- 
selves headlong into every form of dis- 
grace,” Calvin. 

2 Comp. Polyb. ix. 40. 4: amadyotvtes tais 
éAtrion, 

3 Harless, Matthies, Meier, and others. 

4On épyacia, comp. LXX. Ex. xxvi.1; 2 
Chron. xv. 7; Isa. i. 31, al., Plat. Prot. 
p. 853 D: ris ndovns épyaciav, ‘prosecution 
of pleasure,” Hryx. p. 403 E: épyacias mpay- 


patwv poxdnpav, “prosecution of evil 
deeds.”’ 

5 Dem. 270. 15, Reiske, and thereon Dis- 
sen, de Cor. p. 301. 

6 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, and others, includ- 
ing Matthies. 

7“ Quasi agatur de lucro, ita alius alium 
superare contendat,” “‘as though he treats 
of gain, whereby one vies to excel another,” 
Beza. 

8 Holzhausen, 

® Harless. He is followed by Olshausen, 
who explains zAcoveéia of repletion with 
meat and drink, and terms this physical 
greed! According to classical usage, 7Aco- 
veEia might mean superabundance, but not 
gluttony. 


CHAP: SVs, 205 eli: AVL 


partly in general, partly of the N. T. in particular, in which ricovetia never 
means anything else than covetousness. Sensuality and covetousness are the 
two cardinal vices of the heathen, which are to be avoided by the Christians. 
See v. 3; 1 Cor. v. 10f. ; Col. iii. 5. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 2, iii. 14. 

Ver. 20. ‘Yeic dé] opposed to the unconverted Gentiles. — ody obtwc éuafere 
tov Xpiorév|] but ye have not in such manner (so that this instruction would 
have directed you to that Gentile conduct of life, ver. 17 ff.) learned Christ. 
Observe the litotes in oby obtw¢ (quite otherwise, comp. Deut. xviii. 14). The 
proposal of Beza : ‘‘ Quid si post oirwe distinctionem adscribas ?” ‘‘ suppose 
you put a punctation mark after oirw> ?” [so Hofmann and Braune], is, 
although adopted by Gataker and Colomesius, quite mistaken, since ver. 21 
contains the confirmation not of the mere fact éuaWere tov Xprordv, but of the 
mode in which the readers have learned Christ, hence ot y oitwce must neces- 
sarily belong to éuad_ere tov Xpiotdv. — 6 Xpiordc does not mean the doctrine 
of Christ or concerning Christ,’ nor does wavdavery tivd mean to learn to know 
any one, as it has usually in recent times been explained,’ wherefore Raphel 
wrongly appeals to Xen. Hellen. 11. 1. 1 (wa aAAHAove padoev drdco einoar, 
comp. Herod. vii. 208, where it means fo perceive) ; but Christ is the great 
collective object of the instruction which the readers have received (Gal. i. 16 ; 
1 Cor. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. i. 19; Phil. i. 15, al.), so that they have learned Christ. 
This special notion is required by the following eiye . . . éddayd. 

Ver. 21. Hiye] tum certe si, ‘‘then assuredly if,” as to which, however, 
there is no doubt (for Paul himself had preached to them Christ, and in- 
structed them in Christ), introduces, as in iii. 2, in a delicate way the con- 
firmation of the ody obtwe éuavete Tov Xpiordév : assuming, at least, that ye have 
heard him and have received instruction in him, as it is truth in Jesus, that ye 
lay aside, etc., thatis : if, namely, the preaching, in which ye became aware of 
Christ, and the instruction, which was imparted to you as Christians, have been 
in accordance with the fact that true fellowship with Christ consists in your lay- 
iny aside, etc. — avrov jxovoate| to be explained after the analogy of the 
éuadvete Tov Xprordv, ver. 20 ; but airdv, like év air subsequently, is prefixed 
with emphasis. — éy airé] is neither ab eo, ‘by him,”* nor de eo, ‘‘ from 
him,” + nor ‘‘per eum,” ‘through him,” ® nor ‘*illius nomine, quod ad illum 
attinet,” ‘‘in his name, as to what concerns him” (Bengel) ; but it is to be 
explained from the conception éy Xprorg eivac : in Him, in the fellowship of 
Christ, that is, as Christians. Observe the progress of the discourse, which 
passes over from the first proclamation of the gospel (airév 7xobcare) to the 
further instruction which they have thereupon received as already converted 
to Christ (év ato ididayt.)—two elements, which were previously compre- 
hended in iudfere tov Xpiot6v. — xadac| in the manner how, introduces the mode 
of the having heard and having been instructed, so that this jxotoare cad 
édidaxdyre kadoc k.T.A. corresponds to the previous ov y ob rw¢ Eudvere Tov Xpiorov, 
affirmatively stating what oy otrw¢ had indicated negatively. — éarw adgdera 


1 So most expositors before Riickert ; but 3 Castalio, Gataker, Flatt. 
see Bengel and Flatt. 4 Piscator. 
* By Riickert, Holzhausen, Meier, Mat- 5 Beza. 


thies, Harless. 


4G2 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

év to "Iyoov] Truth it is in Jesus, that ye lay aside, etc., in so far as without 
this laying aside of your old man there would be no true but only an appar- 
ent fellowship with Jesus. [See Note XLVIL., p. 486.]— év 16 ’Ijoov] Paul 
passes from the official name Xproréc to the personal name ’Ijooic, because he, 
after having previously recalled the preaching made to the Ephesians and 
instruction concerning the Messiah, now brings into prominence the moral 
character of this preaching and instruction, and the moral life of true Chris- 
tianity is contained in believing fellowship with the historical person of the 
Messiah, with Jesws,! whose death has procured for believers their justifica- 
tion, and by virtue of their fellowship with Him the new life (Rom. vi. 2, 
3), so that to be év r@ "Ijoov with a retention of the old man, would be a con- 
tradictio in adjecto—would be untruth, and not aAjfea év TO "Iyoov. We 
may add that this transition, unforced also at i. 15, from Xpvordc to "Ijoore 
was not necessary ; for, had Paul again written év +6 Xpor@, there would 
therewith, as before, have been presented to the moral consciousness just 
the historical Christ Jesus. Comp. Gal. v. 24 ; Col. iii. 10f. The accusa- 
tive with the infinitive arodéoda ivac depends on éoriv aagdera év TH Iqood, 
so that it appears as subject of the sentence.* Usually arodéotar ipac is 
made to depend on édiddydyre, in which case cadoc éotw adgdera év TO "Tyoow 
is very differently explained. Hither it is regarded as a parenthesis,® as by 
Riickert, who takes xadéc augmentatively, so that the sense is: ‘If ye are 
rightly instructed concerning Christ, ye have not so learned Him, for that 
would be false ; with Him (there where Christ is, ives and rules) there is, 
in fact, only truth (moral, religious truth) to be met with.” Or xadé¢ éorw 
x.7.A. is attached to édiddyGyre, and then arodéoda tua is taken as epexege- 
sis of ka0éc éorw «.t.A., in which case aafdeva in turn is differently explain- 
ed.* Or the connection is so conceived of, that a obrwc is supplied before 
axodfoda, in which case Jesus appears as model.? So also Harless,® who, 
taking dA/eca as moral truth (holiness), justifies jac from the comparison of 
Jesus with the readers (‘‘ as truth is in Jesws, so to lay aside on your part”), 
in which case ’Ijcov, not Xpioro, is held to be used, because the man Jesus 


1Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10-ff.: for ‘* Christi 
ideam perfectissime et fulgidissime exple- 
vit Jesus,” ‘Jesus has fulfilled most per- 


Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Morus, and others. 
5 Jerome led the way with this explana- 
tion: ‘‘quomodo est veritas in Jesu, sic 


fectly and most illustriously the ideal of 
Christ,’ Bengel. 

2 Kiibner, II. p. 347 f. 

3 Beza, Er. Schmid, Michaelis. 

4Camerarius, Raphel, Wolf: ‘‘ edocti es- 
tis . . . quae sit vera disciplina Christi, ni- 
mirum ut deponatis,” ‘‘ye have learned 
whatis Christ’s true discipline, viz., that ye 
lay aside.” Comp. Piscator: ‘‘ quaenam 
sit vera ratio vivendi in Jesu tanquam in 
capite ...nempe deponere,” ‘what is 
the true mode of living in Christ as a Head 
... viz., to lay aside.” Grotius: ‘si ita 
edocti estis evangelium, quomodo illud re- 
vera se habet,”’ “‘if ye have learned the 
Gospel as it truly is;” so also Calixtus, 


erit et in vobis qui didicistis Christum,”’ 
“as the truth is in Jesus, so also will it be 
in you who have learned Christ.”’ Subse- 
quently it was followed by Erasmus, Esti- 
us (“sicut in Christo, Jesu nulla est igno- 
rantia, nullus error, nihil injustum, sed 
pura veritas et justitia, sic et vos,” ‘‘as in 
Christ Jesus, there is no ignorance, no 
error, nothing unjust, but pure truth and 
righteousness, so also ye,” ete.), and others, 
including Storr, Flatt (“as He Himself is 
holy ’’), Holzhausen, Meier (aA7j dea is Chris- 
tian virtue, ‘that ye, as trath in Jesus is, 
should lay aside’’). 
® Followed by Olshausen. 


CHAP. IV., 22. 473 
is set forth as pattern. Matthies likewise makes arodéoa: depend on dv- 
daydyre, but annexes cadac x.7.2. as more precise definition to év aito : ‘in 
Him, as or in as far as the truth is in Jesus, as He is the truth.” So Castalio 
appears already to have taken it. But all these explanations break down 
in presence of the juac, which, if arodécdar buac belonged to édiWayyre, 
would be quite inappropriate. In particular, it may be further urged (@) in 
opposition to Riickert, that according to his explanation the parenthesis 
Kadac éorw adntea év TH Inoov must logically have had its place already after 
tov Xpiorév ; (b) inopposition to Harless, that the alleged comparison of 
Jesus with the readers is at variance with the order of the words, since Paul 
must have written : Kad év r6 "Inocd aAndea éotw, buag arodéoar 3 (c) in 
opposition to Matthies, that cato¢ «.7.2. does not stand beside év airé, and 
that aA7Seva must have had the article. De Wette explains it to this effect : 
In Jesus there is (as inherent quality, comp. John viii. 44) truth (especially 
in a practical respect), consequently there is implied in the instructions con- 
But even 
thus we may expect, instead of azo. iuac, merely the simple arovécda. 
Others have attached azo¥éc3a: tude to ver. 17, as continuation of the 


cerning Him the principle and the necessity of moral change. 


pnkéte tac meperateiv x.t.4.,! in which case cada¢ gore adapt. év TO "Inood 
is likewise differently understood.* But after the new commencement of 
the discourse jueic dé ovy obtwc, ver. 21, this is simply arbitrary and forced. 
Credner takes a peculiar view :* ‘‘ Ye have not thus learned to know the 
Messiah, provided that ye (as I am warranted in presupposing, for it is only 
to such that I write) have heard Him and have been instructed in Him, as 
He as truth (truly, really) is in Jesus.” Thus Paul is held to distinguish his 
readers from such Gentiles as, won over to faith in the near advent of the 
world’s Redeemer, had reckoned themselves as Christians, but without be- 
lieving in Jesus as that Redeemer. But of such Gentiles there is not found 
any trace in the N. T. (the disciples of John, Acts xix. 1 ff., are as such to 
be reckoned among the Jews) ; besides, there would lack any attachment 
for the following arovéoda: iuac, andin using aAgdeca (instead of év aay. or 
dAyoc) Paul would have expressed himself as enigmatically as possible. 
Lastly, Hofmann,* without reason, wishes to attach év 76 ’Iyoov not to cadoc 
éorwv aAyt., but to what follows ; the in itself quite general xaOd¢ éotw adj- 
@eca stood in need of being characterized definitely as Christian, not the 
anoflécba: k.7.2., aS to which it was already implied in the nature of the case 
and was self-evident. 

Ver. 22. ’ArobécOar imac] dependent on kafoc tori aAfbeva év TE "Inood. 
See on ver. 21. What is truth in Jesus, Paul states, not in general (to lay 
aside, etc.), but individualizingly in relution to the readers ; that ye lay aside.° 


1 Cornelius 4 Lapide Bengel, Zachariae ; truth.’’ Zachariae: “For in what Jesus 


not Weitstein, who at ver. 22 merely says 
“ respicit comma 17,” ‘‘ he recurs to vy. 17.” 

2 Bengel: “ita uti veritas (vera agnitio 
Dei veri) reapse est in Jesu; qui credunt in 
Jesum, verant,” “as the truth (the true 
knowledge of God) is really in Jesus, let 
those who believe in Jesus speak the 


teaches to us is alone to be found the truth 
by the heathen . . . despised.’’ Both thus 
explain it, as if aAjd. had the article. 

8 Hinl. Il. p. 398 f. 

4 Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 291. 

5 Not: that ye have laid aside, as Hofmann 
wishes to take it, who explains as if Paul 


ATA THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

Michaclis and Flatt give the strangely erroneous rendering : to lay aside 
yourselves! Inthat case there would be wanting the main matter, the re- 
flexive éavrotce ; and how alien to the N. T. such a form of conceiving self- 
denial ! Luther and others are also incorrect in rendering : lay aside. It 
is not till ver. 25 that the direct summons comes in, and that in the usual 
form of the imperative, instead of which the infinitive,’ and with the accusa- 
tive tua in addition,? would be inappropriate. The figurative expression 
of laying aside is borrowed from the putting off clothing (comp. évdicacbat, 
ver. 24), and in current use, as with Paul (Rom. xiii. 12, 14 ; Col. iii. 8 ff. ; 
Gal. iii. 27), so also with Greek writers ;* hence there was the less reason 
for forcing on the context any more special reference, such as to the custom 
(at any rate, certainly later) of changing clothes at baptism.* — kara ry 
xpotépav avactpogiv]| is not to be explained, as if the words stood : rév wad. 
avip. Tov Kata THY Kpotépav avactp.,° but : that ye lay aside in respect of your 
Sormer life-walk the old man, so that it expresses, in what respect, in reference 
to what the laying aside of the old man is spoken of. ‘‘ Declarat vim verbi 
relationem habentis deponere,” ‘‘According to, shows the force of the word re- 
lating to it : ‘ Put off,’” Bengel. The Pauline rai. dv6p., ideally conceived 
of, is not injuriously affected, as de Wette thinks, in its internal truth by 
this recalling of the pre-Christian walk (as if the author had conceived of it 
empirically). The xporépa avaorp., in fact, concerns the whole moral nature 
of man before his conversion, and the droGécOa tov a2. avbp. affirms that 
the converted man is to retain nothing of his pre-Christian moral personality, 
but, as concerns the pre-Christian conduct of life, is utterly to do away 
with the old ethical individuality and to become the new man. Such a 
contrast, however, as Cornelius 2 Lapide (comp. Anselm) found : ‘‘non 
quoad naturam et substantiam,” ‘‘not as to nature and substance,” would 
be in itself singular and foreign to the context. — As to dvaorpodf, see on 
Gal. i. 18. —rdv raAaiv ivbp.] The pre-Christian moral frame ° is represented 
as aperson, See on Rom. vi. 6. [See Note XLVUL., p. 486 seq. ] —rov o8e- 
pouevov k.7.A.] an attribute of the old man serving as a motive for that arobéobat 
K.T.A.: Which is being destroyed according to the lusts of deception.  deupduevov 
is not to be explained of putrefaction,’ seeing that 6 radadc arp. is not 
equivalent to 7d capa, nor yet of inward moral corruption,’ or self-corruption,® 
seeing that the moral corruption of the old man is obvious of itself and is 


had written: amodenévous dyas . . 
ovotar TH TvevpaTL, . 


. avave- 5 Jerome, Oecumenius, Vorstius, Grotius, 


. evdvoapevous K.T.A, Raphel, Estius, Semler, Koppe, Rosenmiil- 


Starting from the aorist infinitive thus 
taken at variance with linguistic usage 
(comp. on Rom. xy. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 1), Hof- 
mann has incorrectly understood the whole 
passage. According to his interpretation, 
the perfect infinitive must have been used. 
The Vulgate already has correctly not 
deposuisse, but deponere. 

1 Winer, p. 282 f. 

2 Matthiae, p. 1267. 

3 See Wetstein, zn Joc. 

4 So Grotius. 


ler, and others. 

6 Not original sin (as Calovius and others 
would have it), which, in fact, cannot be 
laid aside, but the moral habitus, such as it 
is in the unregenerate man under the do- 
minion of the sin-principle. Comp. Rom. 
Wile (tie) Dp eelianl ties 

7 Michaelis. 

® Koppe, Flatt, Olshausen, Meier, Harless, 
and older expositors. 

® Schenkel. 


CHAP. IV., 23. 4%5 


already present, not merely coming into existence (present participle, which 
is not to be taken, with Bengel, as imperfect), but of eternal destruction (Gal. 
vi. 8), in which case the present participle : which goes to ruin (comp. on 
1 Cor. i. 18), is to be taken either of the certain future realized as present, or 
of the destruction in the course of development.’ The latter appears more 
appropriate to the contrast of rdv kara Oedv Kriobévta, ver. 24. — Karta Td¢ éri- 
Auuiag tHE ardtyc| TH¢ aTdTH¢ 1S Subjective genitive, and 7 ardry is personified.” 
Hence : in accordance with the lusts of deception, with which it has had de- 
signs on the corruption of the old man.” What arary is meant, cannot be 
doubtful according to the context, and according to the doctrine of the 
apostle as to the principle of sin in man, namely, the power of sin deceiving 
man (Rom. vii. 11). Comp. Heb. iii. 13, also 2 Cor. xi. 3. The adjectival 
resolution into cupiditates seducentes, ‘‘seducing desires,” * followed by many, 
is in itself arbitrary and not in keeping with the contrast in ver. 24 (ric 
aAnteiac). 

Ver. 23. Positive side of that which is truth in Jesus : that ye, on the other 
hand, become renewed in the spirit of your reason. — avaveoiaba:| passive, not 
middle,* since the middle has an active sense (1 Macc. xii. 1 ; Thue. v. 18, 
43 ; Polyb. vii. 3. 1, and often). The renewal is God’s work through the 
Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 1 f.; Tit. iii. 5), and without it one is no true Chris- 
tian (Rom. villi. 9; Gal. v. 15), consequently there can be no mention of 
aAnfera év 7H Incov. Respecting the distinction between avavedw (only here 
in the N. T.) and dvaxavda, recentare and renovare, as also respecting ava, 
which does not refer to the restitution of human nature, as it was before 
the fall, but denotes the recentare, ‘‘to renew,” in reference to the previous 
(corrupt) state, see on Col. iii. 10. — 7é¢ rvetpate Tod vodc budv| The genitive 
is at any rate that of the subject ; for instead of simply saying 76 rvebuare 
tuov,° Paul makes use of the more precise designation in the text. But the 
7@ Tvetwats May be either instrumental or dative of reference. In the former 
case, however, we should ® have to understand the Holy Spirit, who has His’ 
seat in the voic of the man on whom He is bestowed, and through whom (da- 
tive), the avaxaivworc Tov vodc, ‘‘ renewal of the mind,” Rom. xii. 2, is effected, 
so that now the old waraorne, ‘* vanity,” of the voic, ‘‘ mind” (iv. 17) no longer 
occurs, and the kawvéryc, ‘* newness,” which, on the other hand, has set in 
(Rom. vi. 4), is a xarvéty¢ Tov mveiparoc, ‘‘ newness of spirit.” Comp. Tit. 
lili. 5. But, in opposition to this view, we may urge, first, that the Holy 
Spirit bestowed on man is never in the N. T. designated in such a way that 
man appears as the subject of the Spirit (thus never: 7d rveiua buoy and 
the like, or as here : 76 rvevua Tov vodc iudv) ; and secondly, that it was the 
object of the apostle to put forward the aspect of the moral self-activity of 


1So Grotius: “qui tendit ad exitium,” 
““ which tends to destruction.” 

2 Comp. Hesiod. Theog. 224. 

3 Grotius. 

4 Renew yourselves, Luther. 

5 He might have written, asin Rom. xii. 
2, merely 76 vot vuay; but his conception 


here penetrates deeper, namely, to the 
fountainhead of the vital activity of the 
vovs, to the inner agent and mover in that 
activity. 

6 With Oecumenius, Castalio, and others, 
including Ch. F. Fritzsche in his Vov. Opuse. 
p. 244 f., and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 28. 


4°76 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


the Christian life, and hence he had no occasion expressly to introduce the 
point, which, moreover, was obvious of itself: through the Holy Spirit. 
Accordingly, there remains as the right explanation only the wswal one (da- 
tive of reference), according to which the rveiua is the hwman spirit, in dis- 
tinction from the divine (Rom. viii. 16). Consequently : in respect of the 
spirit of your vovc, that is, of the spirit by which your vov¢ is governed. The 
xvevua, namely, is the higher life-principle in man, the moral power akin to 
God in him, the seat of moral self-consciousness and of moral self-determi- 
nation. This rvevua, which forms the moral personality of man, the Ego of 
his higher (#7 turned towards God, has as the organ of its vital exercise— 
as the faculty of its moral operation—the voic, that is, the reason in its eth- 
ical quality and activity (comp. on Rom. vii. 28), and puts the voic * at the 
service of the divine will (Rom. vii. 25), in an assent to the moral practice 
of this divine will revealed in the law and a hatred of the contrary (Rom. 
vii. 14 ff.). But, since this Ego of the higher life, the substratum of the 
inward man—the rvetva, in which the vot¢ has its support and its deter- 
mining agent—is under the preponderant strength of the power of sin in 
the flesh non-free, bound, and weak, so that man under the fleshly-psychical 
influence of the natural character drawing bim to sin becomes liable to the 
slavery of immoral habit, the zvevja tov vodc needed renewal unto moral 
freedom and might, which consecration of power it receives in regeneration 
by means of the Holy Spirit, in which case, however, even the regenerate 
has always to contend against the cdpé still remaining in him, but contends 
victoriously under the guidance of the divine rvetua (Gal. v. 16-18). 

Ver. 24. Observe the change of tenses. The laying aside of the old man is 
the negative commencement of the change, and hence is represented as a 
momentary act ; the becoming renewed is an enduring process, the jinishing 
act of which is the putting on of the new man, correlative to the arobéchat. 
Hence aroécba, aorist ; avavecioba, present ; évdicacba, aorist. —rdv karvov 
‘avOpwrov| As previously the old immoral state is objectivized, and objectivized 
indeed as a person, so is it also here with the new Christian moral state. Thus 
this new habitus appears as the new man, which God has created (xricfévra), but 
man appropriates for himself (évdicacAaz), so that thus moral freedom is not an- 
nulled by God’s ethical creative action. — xriofévra] not present, but the new 
moral habitus of the Christian is set forth as the person created by God, 
which in the individual cases és not first constituted by growth, but is received, 
and then exhibits itself experimentally in the case of those who, according 
to the figurative expression of the passage, have put it on. — xara Oedv] Comp. 
Col. iii. 10 ; not merely divinely, and that in contrast to human propaga- 
tion,’ but : according to God, i.e., ad exremplum Dei, ‘according to the mod- 
el of God” (Gal. iv. 28). Thereby the creation of the new man is placed 
upon a parallel with that of our first parents (Gen. i. 27), who were created 


1 Bengel excellently puts it: “ Spiritu in thinking that expositors have here neg- 


mens, ‘In the spirit of the mind;’ 1 Cor. lected to seek instruction from 1 Cor. xiy. 
xiv. 14, Spiritus est intimum mentis, ‘The 14. 
spirit is the inmost shrine of the mind’ ” 2 Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 289. 


Delitzsch consequently errs (Psychol. p. 184) 


CHAP. 1V., 20. ; 47? 


after God’s image (kar eixdva tov xricavroc, Col. iii. 10); they, too, until 
through Adam sin came into existence, were as sinless év dcxacocivy Kad 
dovdtyte THE aAnfeiac.'— év dixatcoobvy x.t.2.| belongs to rov Kata Oedv Kriobévra, 
expressing the constitution of the new man created after God ; furnished, 
provided with rectitude and holiness of the truth.? The truth is the opposite 
of the darary, ver. 22, and like this personified. As in the old man the 
’Ardty pursues its work, so in the new man the ’AA/Oea, Z.e., the Truth xa7’ 
éfoyqv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the divine evangelical truth, bears sway, and the 
moral effects of the truth, righteousness and holiness, appear here, where the 
truth is personified, as its attributes, which now show themselves in the new 
man who has been created. The resolving it into an adjective: true, not 
merely apparent, righteousness and holiness,* is arbitrary and tame. And 
to take év instrumentally 4 is erroneous, for the reason that righteousness and 
holiness form the ethical result of the creation of the new man ; hence Beza, 
Koppe, and others thought that éy must be taken for cic.  dixcaoobvy and 
davdryc (comp. Luke i. 75 ; 1 Thess. ii. 10 ; Tit. i. 8) are distinguished so, that 
the latter places rectitude in itself (dcxasootyy), in relation to God (sanetitas, 
“‘holiness”) ; rd wév totic Geoi¢ mpoapiAcc borov, ‘‘ what is pleasing to the gods is 
holy,” Plat. Huth. p. 6 E.° With special frequency the two notions are as- 
sociated in Plato. 

Ver. 25. On the ground of what was previously said (dé), as application 
of got aAnGera év TS “Inood arofécba buac x.T.A. on to ver. 24, there now fol- 
low various special (not systematically arranged) exhortations as far as ver. 
32. — That the encouragement to lay aside lying and to speak the truth stands 
at the head, appears to be occasioned simply by the last uttered ric aAndeiac; 
and the figurative form of the precept (a7o6éuevor) is an echo from what pre- 
cedes. It is possible also, however, that the prohibitions of lying, wrath, 
stealing, as they are here given, had their concrete occasion with which we 
are not acquainted. The reasons which Zanchius, e.g., has discovered, are 
arbitrary. And Grotius says incorrectly : ‘* Hoc adversus eos dicit, qui, 
ut gratias capatarent aut Judaeorum aut gentium, alia dicebant, quam sen- 
tirent,” ‘‘ This he says against those who, to obtain the favor of either Jews 
or Gentiles, said other things than they thought.” The subsequent 6rz éopév 
arAgr. wédn Shows, in fact, that Paul has thought merely of the relation of 
fellowship of Christians one with another, and has meant peta tov TAnoiov airovd 
of the fellow- Christian, not of the fellow-man generally.® — Aadeire . . . avtow 
is a reminiscence from Zech. viii. 16. —6re éopév x.t.A.] Motive (reminding 
them of vv. 12-16). Members one of another, and fo lie one to another, how 
contradictory ! Reciprocal membership is, in fact, a connection so inti- 
mate and vital, subsisting in constant mutual furtherance and rendering 


2 Comp. Ernesti, Ursprung der Stinde, IT. Calvin, Grotius, and most expositors. 
p. 135 ff., in opposition to Julius Miiller, IT. 4 Morus, Flatt. 
p. 487, who calls in question the identity of 5 See Tittmann, Synon. p. 25, and the pas- 
contents between the cata teov and the sages in Wetstein. 
original divine image. 6 Jerome, Estius, Grotius, Michaelis, and 
2 On ev, see Matthiae, p. 1340. others, 


3 Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 


THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


, 


478 


of service ! ‘‘est enim monstrum, si membra inter se non consentiant, imo si 
fraudulenter inter se agant,” ‘‘ for there is a monster if the members do not 
harmonize with one another, but act towards each other deceitfully,” Calvin. 
Chrysostom shows at great length how the several members of the real body 
do not deceive one another, and Michaelis repeats it ; but Paul says nothing 
of this. — aa272. wéAn] members of each other, mutually the one of the other. 
The same conception is met with Rom, xii. 5, and is not inaceurate,’ since, 
indeed, in the body of Christ, even as in the physical body, no member ex- 
ists for itself, but each belonging to each, in mutual union with the other 
members, 1 Cor. xii. 15 ff. 

Vv. 26, 27. See Zyro in the Stud. w. Krit. 1841, p. 681 ff. — opyifeobe kat wy 
duaptavere] a precept expressed literally after the LXX. Ps. iv. 5, as to 
which it must be left undetermined whether Paul understood the original 
text? as the LXX. did, or chose this form only in recollection of the LXX., 
without attending to the original text. To the right understanding of the 
sense (which Paul would have expressed by opy:Géuevor 7) duaptdvete, or some- 
thing similar, if that definite form of expression in the LXX. had not present- 
ed itself to him) the observation of Bengel guides us : ‘‘Saepe vis modi cadit 
super partem duntaxat sermonis, ‘Often the force of the mode falls on only 
a part of the remark,’ Jer. x. 24.”% Here, namely, the vis modi, ‘‘ force of the 
mode,” lies upon the second imperative (comp. passages like John. i. 47, 
vii. 52): be angry and sin not, i.e., in anger do not fall into transgression ; so 
that Paul forbids the combination of the dn apr avery with the 6 pyifecbar. 
Comp. Matthies : ‘‘ In the being angry let it not come to sin ;” Harless : ‘* Be 
angry in the right way, without your sinning.” * Paul, therefore, does not for- 
bid the dpyi{ecAa: in itself, and could not forbid it, because there is® a holy 
anger,® whichis ‘‘calcar virtutis,” ‘‘a spur to virtue,” as there is also a 
divine anger; the dpyifecfa kat duaptavecv, however, is not to take place, 
but, on the contrary, the dpyifecda is to be without sin, consequently an 
opyilecbar kai wy duapravecv, Asregards the substantial sense, the same 
result is brought out with the wswal explanation, but it is usually believed ® 
that the imperative may be resolved conditionaliter, ‘‘ conditionally,” in 
accordance with Hebrew usage : if ye are angry, do not sin (Isa. vill. 9 f. ; 
Amos v. 4, 6, al.).° But the combination of the two imperatives connected 


1 Riickert. of anger, but under that of placability,” he 


overlooks the fact that in anger one may 
commit sin otherwise than by implacabil- 
ity; and that the following 6 Atos «.7.A. 


3717, mean: tremble, and err not (Ewald), 


with which David calls upon his enemies to 
tremble on account of their iniquities tow- 
ards him, the favorite of God, and not 
further to sin. Comp. also Hupfeld in loc. 
Yet other recent scholars, including Hitzig, 
have translated, in harmony with the LXX.: 
Be angry, but offend not. 

3 Comp. also Isa. xii. 1; Matt. xi. 25; and 
see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 249 f. [E. T. 290]. 

* When, however, Harless would assign to 
our passage a place ‘‘not under the head 


brings into prominence only a single precept 
Salling under the »y auapr. 

5 See Wuttke, Sittenl. IT. § 243. 

® That this, however, is not meant in ver. 
21, see on that verse. 

7 Seneca, de ira, iii. 3. 

§ And already in the Constitutt. Apost. ii. 
53, 2, the passage of the Psalm is so taken. 

® So also Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, Holzhau- 
sen, Meier, Olshausen, Zyro, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Bleek. 


CHAP. IV., 26, 27. 479 
by and, like: do this, and live, Gen. xii. 18, comp. Isa. viii. 9, and similar 
passages, —a combination, moreover, which is not a Hebraism, but a general 
idiom of language (comp. divide et impera),—is not at all in point here, 
because it would lead to the in this case absurd analysis: ‘‘if ye are angry, 
ye shall not sin.” Winer, p. 279, allows the taking of the first imperative in 
a permissive sense.‘ In this way we should obtain as result : ‘‘be angry (I 
cannot hinder it), but only do not sin.” So also de Wette. No doubt a per- 
mission of anger, because subsequently xa? yu duapt. follows, would not be in 
conflict with ver. 31, where manifestly all hostile anger is forbidden ; but the 
mere «ai is only logically correct when both imperatives are thought of in the 
same sense, not the former as permitting and the latter as enjoining, in which 
case the combination becomes ezceptive (‘‘ only, however”’), which would be 
expressed by addad, mAgv, or pdvov.? Beza, Piscator, Grotius, and others 
take opyil. interrogatively: ‘‘irascimini, et ne peccate,” ‘‘ Are you angry ? 
do not sin.” Against this we cannot urge—the objection usually taken 
since the time of Wolf—the «ai, which often in rapid emotion strikes in 
with some summons ;* but we may urge the fact that Paul reproduces 
a passage of the LX_X.* in which oryif. is imperative, and that such an abrupt 
and impassioned question and answer would not be in keeping with 
the whole calm and sober tone of the discourse. — yy auaprdvere] forbids 
every kind of sinning, to which anger may lead. Zyro, after Neander, 
would limit it to the hostile relation towards others, which, however, 
is purely a supplied thought (ci¢ tov xAyciov, or the like). —6 jAue . 

diaB6Am] not included as belonging to the words of the Psalm, states 
in what way the given precept is to be carried out; namely, (1) the 
irritation must be laid aside on the same day, and (2) no scope may there- 
in be given to the devil. — 6 7Av0¢ uy Exidvéto x.7.2.] Comp. Deut. xxiv. 138, 
15 ; Jer. xv. 9; Philo, de Legg. Spec. II. p. 324. The émidvérw is to be 
taken : go down over your irritation.° That the night is here conceived of 
as the nurse of wrath,’ or that the eventide of prayer is thought of,® is 
arbitrarily assumed. Jerome and Augustine interpreted it even of Christ, 
the Sun of Righteousness, and Lombard of the sun of reason! The mean- 
ing of these words, to be taken quite literally,* is no other than : before 
evening let your irritation be over, by which the very speedy, undelayed aban- 


1 Comp. Kriger, § 54, 4. 2. 

2 Thisis no “ philological theorizing,” but 
is based on logical necessity. No instance 
can be adduced in which, of two impera- 
tives coupled by «ai, the former is to be 
taken as concessive and the second as pre- 
ceptive, in contrast to the former. To re- 
fer to Jer. x. 24 as a parallel, as Winer does, 
is erroneous, for the very reason that in 
that passage—which, however, in general 
is very different from ours—7Ajv, not Kat, 
is used. 

3 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 148. 

4 Which, it is true, is quite arbitrarily 
denied by Beza and Koppe. 

5 On the citation of these words in Polye. 


Phil. 12, see Introd. § 3. 

6° Comp. also Hom. JZ. ii. 413, and Faesi, 
in loc. (Nigelsbach in loc. takes another 
view). 

7 Fathers in Suicer, I. p. 1823; Bengel, and 
others. 

® Baumgarten. 

® Comp. the custom of the Pythagoreans: 
eimoTe Tpoaxdetev Els AoLdoplas Um’ Opyns, Tply 
HR TOV HALtov Svvat Tas Seétas E4BaddoVTES 
aAAnjAots Kal dveAvovto, “If 
they were ever led by wrath to abuse, 
taking each other’s hands and embracing, 
they were reconciled before the sun went 
down,”’ Plut. de am. frat. p. 488 B. 


aCTATA/LEVOL 


480 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


doning of anger is concretely represented. — rapopyiopde is the arousing of 
wrath, exacerbatio, from which épy/, asa lasting mood, is different. Comp. 
pee Kings xv. 30, al. In the Greek writers the word does not occur. 
We may add that Zanchius and Holzhausen are mistaken in holding the 
xapé in the word to indicate unrighteous irritation. See, on the other hand, 
e.g., Rom. x. 19; Ezek. xxxii.9. It denotes the excitement brought upon us: 
[See Note XLIX., p. 487. ]— dé] nor yet, for the annexation of a new clause_ 
falling to be added.’ The Recepta ujre would so place the two prohibitions 
side by side, that they ought properly to be connected by neither... nor 
(ure... uAte), but that Paul had not yet thought of this in the first clause, 
but had written the simple “4, and had only at the second clause changed 
the conception into such a form as if he had previously written p7re (comp. 
our: not... nor). This usage is met with (in opposition to Elmsley) also 
in classical writers, although more rarely,? but not elsewhere in Paul, and 
hence is not probable here. — didore rérov] 7.€., give scope, opportunity for be- 
ing active. See on Rom, xii. 19.—76 diaBdrAw] to the devil ; for he is de- 
noted by daoAoc in all passages of the N. T., where it is not an adjective 
(1 Tim, iti. 11, 12 ; 2 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. ii. 3), even in 1 Tim: a1, 6 ome 
70. Hence Erasmus,’ Luther, Erasmus Schmid, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, 
Stolz, Flatt, and others * are in error in holding that d:éBodoc is here equiva- 
lent to calumniator ; in which view Erasmus thought of the heathen slander- 
ing the Christians, to whom they were to furnish no material ; and most 
expositors thought of the tale-bearers nursing disputes, to whom they were 
not to lend an ear. In an irritated frame of mind passion easily gains the 
ascendency over sobriety and watchfulness, and that physical condition is 
favorable to the devil for his work of seducing into everything that is op- 
posed to God. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 8; 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; Eph. vi. 11 ff. Harless 
refers the danger on the part of the devil to the corruption of the church- 
life,’ the fellowship of which, in the absence of placability, is rent by the 
devil. But this, as not implied in the context, must have been said by an 
addition (év rH éxxAnoia, or the like, after térov).— The name d:aBor0¢ does 
not occur elsewhere in the undoubtedly genuine Epistles of the apostle ; but 
this, considering the equally general currency of the two names devil and 
Satan, may be accidental. Comp. also Acts xiii. 10. We may add that the 
citation of the Clementines (Hom. xix. 2) : yi déte rpdeacw 76 rovnpe, ‘* Give 
no pretext to the evil one,” has nothing to do with our passage.® 

Ver. 28. The stealer isno more to steal. The present participle does not 
stand pro praeterito, ‘for the past,”" but : he who occupies himself with steal- 
ing. The right view is already taken by Zanchius ; see also Winer, p. 316. 
As there were in the apostolic church fornicators (1 Cor. v. 1), so there were 
also stealers,* and the attempts to tone down the notion are just as arbitrary 


1 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 210. 5 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. 
2 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 709; Bornemann, ®In opposition to Schwegler, J.¢.» 
ad Xen. Anad. iv. 8. 3, p. 808, Lips. ; Maetzn. p. 393 f. 
ad Antiph. p. 195 £. 7 Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, and most of 
3 Not in the Paraphr. the older expositors, following the Vulgate. 


4 Koppe is undecided. § In connection with which the appeal to 


CHAP. IV., 29. 481 
as they are superfluous.’ The question why Paul does not mention restitu- 
tion (Luke xix. 8; Ex. xxii.; Lev. vi.; Isa. lviii. 6; Ezek. xxxiii. 15; Plato, 
Legg. ix. p. 864 D f.) is not, with Estius, to be answered to the effect, that it is 
contained in pyxéte KAerrétw 3° but to the effect, that Paul’s design was not to 
give any complete instruction on the point of stealing, but only to inculcate 
the prohibition of the same and the obligation of the opposite (which, more- 
over, has restitution for its self-evident moral presupposition). The whole 
exhortation in this form has, indeed, been regarded as inappropriate, because 
not in keeping with the apostolic strictness ;> but we have to observe, on the 
other hand, that Paul elsewhere too contents himself with simple prohibitions 
and commands (see e.g. Rom, xiii. 183 f.), and that the apostolic strictness fol- 
lows in the sequel (v. 5). —paAdov dé] rather on the other hand, imo vero, en- 
hancing in a corrective sense the merely negative pmére KAext. See on Gal. 
iv. 9. — koriatw x.t.A.| let him labor, in that he works with his hands that which 
is good ; in that, by the activity of his hands (instead of his thievish prac- 
tices), he brings about that which belongs to the category of the morally 
good. Bengel well says : ‘‘ rd aya¥év antitheton ad furtum prius manu pi- 
ceata male commissum,” ‘‘is the contrast to the theft first committed with 
thievish hand.” — iva éy1, «.7.a.] The view of Schoettgen, that this applies 
to the Jewish opinion of tl:e allowableness of theft serving for the support of 
the poor,‘ is indeed repeated by Koppe (comp. Stolz) and Holzhausen, but 
is—considering the general nature of the 6 KAémr. pyxéte kAenr., addressed, 
moreover, to readers mostly Gentile-Christian—not expressed in the 
words, which rather quite simply oppose to the forbidden taking the giving 
according to duty. —r6 ypelav éyovr:] to the one having need, namely, that 
there may be imparted to him. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 24; Markii. 25 ; 1 John 
in. 17; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C, xii. p. 965 B. 

Ver. 29. After the three definite exhortations, vv. 25, 26, 28, now follow 
more general and comprehensive ones. —Ilac Adyoc . . . uy Exxop.| The ne- 
gation is not to be separated from the verb. With regard to every evil dis- 
course, it is enjoined that it shall not go forth, etc.°— carpéc] corrupt ; in 
the ethical sense : worthless (6 uy tiv wWiav ypeiav rAnpoi, ‘‘ which docs not 
satisfy its appropriate use,” Chrysostom), pravus, ‘‘ distorted ;” opposite : 
ayalldc mpdc oikodouyy THE XpEiac.° — GAN ei Tic ayaboc mpoc otk. tT. xp. | but if there 


the permission of stealing among various 
heathen nations, as among the Egyptians 
and Lacedaemonians (see Wolf, Cur. ; Miil- 
ler, Dorier, II. p. 310 f.), is entirely unsuita- 
ble in an apostolic epistle with its high 
moral earnestness. Against such a preju- 
dice Paul would have written otherwise. 

1 See, e.g., Jerome: “furtum nominans 
omne, quod alterius damno quaeritur,” 
naming as theft everything sought with in- 
jury to another.’’? He approves, moreover 
the interpreting it of the furtwm spirituale, 
‘spiritual theft,’ of the false prophets. 
Estius: ‘‘generaliter positum videtur pro, 
fraudare, sublrahere, etc.,‘‘It seems to be put 


31 


generally for ‘to defraud, withdraw,’ etc.” 
Comp. Calvin and many, as also still Holz- 
hausen. 

2°* Nam qui non restituit cum possit, is ad- 
hue in furto .. . perseverat,” “for he who 
does not restore when he can, is still perse- 
vering in theft.’’ This is in itself true, but 
no reader could light upon such a pregnant 
meaning of the pycete KAETTETH. 

3 See de Wette. 

4 Jalk. Rubeni, f. 110,4; Vajikra rabdba, f. 
147, 1. 

5 See Fritzsche, Diss. lI. in 2 Cor. p. 24 ff. 

6 See, in general, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 377 
f. ; Kypke, IT. p. 297 f. 


482 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


is any (discourse) good for the edification of the need, sc., let it proceed from 
your mouth. On dyaféc with eic, xpéc,' or infinitive, denoting aptitude or 
serviceableness for anything, see Kypke, II. p. 298. — mpo¢ oikodounv rie 
ypetac does not stand by hypallage for eic¢ ypeiay ric oixodouye, ? but tHe ypeiac 
is an objective genitive; it is the need just present, upon which the edi- 
fying (Christianly helpful) influence of the discourse is to act. Riickert 
and Olshausen take 7 ypeta for oi ypeiav éyovrec. Arbitrarily and to the dis- 
turbance of the sense, since in fact every one has need of edification, conse- 
quently rc ypetac would convey nothing at all characteristic, no modal defi- 
nition of dyafdc mpod¢ olxodou. — iva 6 yaprv Toic axobovor| aim of the éxrop. éx 
7. or. by., previously conceived as supplied : in order that it (this discourse) 
may bestow grace, i.e., benefit, on the hearers, may bring blessing for them. 
Opposite of such discourses : 2 Tim. ii. 14. Theodoret (iva gavq dexroe toi¢ 
ax.,‘‘ that it may appear acceptable to the hearers, etc.”), Luther, Calovius, 
Raphel, Kypke, Zachariae, Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and others, in- 
cluding Riickert, Meier, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius : in order that it 
may afford pleasure, be agreeable, to the hearers. Comp. also Chrysostom, who 
compares the discourse to a fragrant ointment. But, apart from the fact 
that discourses, which are good poe oixodopjy ri ypeiac, cannot always be 
agreeable (1 Cor. vii. 8 ff.), this interpretation is opposed to linguistic 
usage, according to which ydpev didwue always signifies gratificari, to 
confer a kindness, to show a service of love, or the like (Jas. iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. v. 
5; Ex. ili. 21; Ps. Ixxxiv. 12 [11]; Tob. 1. 13; Soph Ajgeaaemee tae 
Legg. iii. p. 702 C ; also in the passages adduced by Wetstein and Kypke). 

Ver. 30. Connected by xai with what precedes ; hence not, with Lach- 
mann and Tischendorf, to be separated by a full stop from ver. 29, by which 
there would result an exhortation too indefinite in the connection. — And 
grieve not (which would take place by means of Aéyou carpoi) the Holy Spirit 
of God. Evil discourses are so opposed to the holy nature and aim of the 
Divine Spirit, who dwells in the Christians, that He cannot fail to be 
grieved thereat.* An anthropopathic conception of the consciousness, with 
which the Spirit of God is holily affected, of the incongruity of human ac- 
tion with His holiness ; but how truly and touchingly in keeping with the 
idea of the love of God, which bears sway in His Spirit (Rom. v. 5)! The 
man becomes conscious of this grieving of the divine zveiuza, when he, who 
has become through the atonement and sanctification the dwelling-place of 
the Spirit, no longer receives from this Spirit the testimony that he is the 
child of God (Rom. viii. 16). The chosen expression, ‘‘ the Holy Spirit of 
God,” renders the enormity of such action most palpable. An allusion, we 
may add, to Isa. Ixiii. 10 is not to be assumed, since in that passage the 
mapofive [exasperating] of the Spirit is characteristic. —év © éogpay. si¢ 
quépav aroaurp.| furnishes motive for the exhortation : for if ye have received 


1 Plat. Rep. vii. p. 522 A, and Stallbaum pyrote évtevéntat T@ @c@ Kal amooTH amo GOV, 
in loc. ‘Distress not the Holy Spirit that dwell- 
2 Beza. eth in you, lest he entreat God, and he de- 
3 Comp. Hermas, ii. 10.3, as also ii. 3: hh part from you,” 
OAtBe TO myEDMAa GyLoy TO év Gol KaTOLKOUY, 


NOTES. 483 


so great a benefit through the Holy Spirit, how wrong (ungrateful) is it 
when you grieve Him! Harless, following older expositors, finds the possi- 
bility of losing the seal here hinted at. But to this 7 Avzreite points less nat- 
urally than 7 rapocivere (Isa. xii. 10) would point to it. —éogpay.] quite 
as at i. 18. — cic juép. arodutp.| for the day of redemption ; when at the Pa- 
rousia the certainty of the deliverance unto salvation, indicated by écdpay., 
becomes reality. As to aroAitpworc, comp. on i. 14; Luke xxi. 28; also 
Rom. viii. 23. 

Vv. 31, 32. UWxpia] Bitterness, z.e., fretting spitefulness, Acts vili. 23 ; Jas. 
iii. 14.1— As to the distinction between Guuédc (ebullition of anger) and épyf, 
see on Rom. ii. 8; Gal. v. 20. The context shows, we may add, that here 
loveless and hostile anger is meant: hence there is no inconsistency with 
ver. 26. — xpavyi] clamor, in which hostile passion breaks out, Acts xxiii. 9.? 
— Bdacdnuia| not : ‘‘ verba, quae Det honorem . . . laedunt,” ‘‘ words that 
injure God’s honor,” Grotius ; but, in accordance with the context, evil- 
speaking against the brethren, comp. Col. iii. 8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 4; Matt. xii. 
31, xv. 19. —xaxia] is here not badness in general, vitiositas,* but, in harmony 
with the connection, the special spite, malice, Rom. i. 29; Col. iii.8. This 
is the leaven of the rixpia x.7.A. — yiveche] not be, but become, in keeping with 
the ap67rw ay’ buav. — ypnoroi] kind, Col. iii. 12.4 The conjecture that the 
word contains an allusion to the name Christians,’ is an arbitrary fancy. — 
evorAayxvor| compassionate. Comp. Manass. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 8, and the pas- 
sages from the Test. XII. Patr. in Kypke. — yapiféuevor] forgiving, 2 Cor. 
lil. 7, 10, xii. 18. The explanation donantes [donating] (Vulgate), largientes 
[giving bountifully] (Erasmus), is not in keeping with the context. — éavroic] 
equivalent to aAAydAoc. See on Col. iii. 12. —xaddc cai 6 Ocdc x.7.A.] Motive 
to the yapit. éavr., from their own experience of the archetypal conduct of 
God. Matt. vi. 14, xviii. 21 ff. — év Xpiore] in Christ, in whose self-surren- 
der to the death of atonement the act of the divine forgiveness was accom- 
plished, i. 6 f. ; 2 Cor. v. 19. 





Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XXXVI. Ver. 2. peta done tarewodpootvne k.T.A. 


« The very work for which Christ’s gospel came into the world was no other 
than to cast down the mighty from their seat, and to exalt the humble and 
meek ; it was then only in accordance with this its task and mission that it 
should dethrone the heathen virtue weyadovyia, and set up the despised 
Tarevoppootvn in its room... Indeed, the very word tarewvodpooivy is, I 
believe, itself a birth of the gospel; I am not aware of any Greek writer 
who employed it before the Christian era, or apart from the influence of 
' Christian writings after . .. The use which heathen writers make of 


1See Wetstein, ad Rom. iii. 14 ; Loesner, anger. 

Obss. p. 344 f.; Wyttenbach, ad Plut. Mor. 3 Cic. Tusc. iv. 15. 34. 

VI. p. 1033. 4 See Tittmann, Synon. pp. 140, 195. 
* Chrysostom calls the cpavy7 the steed of ® Olshausen. 


484 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


rarewéc, tamewérync, and other words of this family, shows plainly in what 
sense they would have employed rarevvogpoovvy, had they thought it good 
to allow the word. For indeed the instances in which rarecvé¢ is used in » 
any other than an evil sense, and to signify aught else than that which 
is low, slavish and mean-spirited, are few and altogether exceptional,” 
(Trench, Synonyms of the N. T., First Series, p. 201). As to its relation to 
mpaotnc: ‘The gospel of Christ did not to so great an extent rehabilitate 
rpabrnc . . . Ipadryc did not require to be turned from a bad sense to a good, 
but only to be lifted up from a lower good to a higher.’’ Aristotle ‘‘ finds the 
mpaérn¢ worthy of praise, more because by it a man retains his own equanimity 
and composure, than from any nobler reason.” But ‘‘the scriptural xpadr¢ 
is not in man’s outward behavior only ; nor yet in his relations to his fellow- 
men ; as little in his mere outward disposition. Rather it is an unwrought 
grace of the soul, and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards God 
(Matt. xi. 29 ; James i. 21). It expresses that temper of spirit in which we 
accept His dealings with us without disputing and resisting ; and it is closely 
linked with the rarevvodpootvy, and follows close upon it (Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 
12), because it is only the humble heart which is also the meek ; and which as 
such does not fight against God, and more or less struggle and contend with 
Him.”’ 
XXXVII. Ver. 5. pia wioruc. 


Meyer's position is confirmed by Harless, who denies absolutely the applica- 
tion of fides quae creditur to xiorv¢ in'Scripture. Nevertheless, the qualification 
of Ellicott should not be overlooked: ‘‘That this, however, must not be 
unduly limited to the feeling of the individual, e.g., to faith in its utterly sub- 
jective aspect, seems clear from the use of wia and the general context. As 
there is one Lord, so the pia riotic is not only a subjective recognition of this 
eternal truth, but also necessarily involves a common objective profession. 


XXXVIII. Ver. 5. Omission of the Lord’s Supper. 


Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, Braune agree in the explanation as given by the last : 
‘©The Lord’s Supper is rather an act of the preserved unity than a motive for 
its preservation. It is celebrated by those who have been reconciled with God 
and hold each other to be brethren ; it does not so much give an impulse to 
peaceableness, as it is a result of the same, as acommon celebration of those 
who have been united together, as an attestation of the church which has 
become one in the Lord.’’ Alford adds: ‘‘In 1 Cor. x. 17, where an act was 
in question which was a clear breach of union, it forms the rallying-point.”’ 


XXXIX. Ver. 8. &dwxe douara. 


The idea of édwxe cannot be justified from the letter of Ps. Ixviii. 18. The 
form of the quotation would be unallowable in an uninspired writer. But by 
illumination of the Holy Spirit, the apostle discerns the true idea involved in 
Christ’s reception of gifts, and employs a word which will the more fully and 
clearly express the mind of the Spirit in the Psalm. <‘‘ We cannot argue 
from the meaning of the word, but we may from the scope of the passage. 
The truth is, that the apostle sees in the literal O. T. a higher spiritual signifi- 
cance... The apostle sees that when a king takes, he takes to give, and 


NOTES. 485 


therefore substitutes the one word for the other, without at all putting the 
one word as the translation of the other.” (Perowne on Ps. ]xvili. 19). ‘* We 
admit then frankly and freely the verbal difference, but remembering that the 
apostle wrote under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, we recognize here neither 
imperfect memory, precipitation (Riick.), arbitrary change (Calv.), accommoda- 
tion (Morus), nor Rabbinical interpretation (Meyer), but simply the fact that 
the psalm, and especially ver. 18, had a Messianic reference, and bore within it 
a further, fuller and deeper meaning. This meaning the inspired apostle, by a 
slight change of language and the substitution of ‘ gave’’ for the more dubious 
‘« received,’’ succinctly, suggestively and authoritatively unfolds’’ (Ellicott). 


XL. Ver. 8. pypyardrevoev aiywadwoiar K.7.A. 


The toic avIpairorc in the succeeding clause must not be pressed too far on 
either side in the interpretation of the aiyuadwoiav. The former might readily 
be included under the latter, the reference being to the same object only with 
a changed relation, as Harless, Olshausen and Braune evidently regard it. On 
the other hand, the aiywaAwoiav probably includes everything arrayed against 
Christ’s power, ‘‘sin, death and conscience,” Luther, Er. ed. 64: 240; or 
«Satan and the gates of hell,” Calovius, or, with the great body of interpreters, 
«Satan, sin and death,” which, against their will, are converted into means for 
advancing the salvation of men. Thus a continual repetition of what is stated 
in Heb. ii. 14 is occurring. Yet what occurs thus with these forces of the evil 
world is also fulfilled in another manner with converted men. They become 
“« oifts” to their fellow-men in the church by first having been led willing cap- 
tives by the great conqueror. This is the history of all the “apostles,” 
‘“‘ prophets,” ‘‘evangelists,” etc., enumerated in ver. 11, as the church's 
 oifts. 


XLI. Ver. 9. ei¢ Ta Karétepa pépn. 


«The greater the descent, the greater the ascent ; and if the aiyyuadwoia con- 
sisted of Satan and his powers, the warfare in which they were taken captive 
would most naturally be contemplated in all its extent, as reaching to their 
habitation itself : ‘This ascent, what does it imply but a descent, and that even 
to the lower parts of the earth, from which the spoils of victory were fetched. 
This meaning seems to be upheld by the ra ravta which follows, as well as by 
the contrast’’’ (Alford). So among English writers, Ellicott and Barry. Dr. 
Riddle suggests that this view may have been maintained from the desire to 
sustain the article of the Creed: ‘‘He descended into hell,” while ‘ the other 
may have been quite as much influenced by the fear of favoring the Romish 
appendages.’’ Eadie has an analysis of the various views, and a long defence 
of the expression as referring to the earth. Braune correctly rejects with 
Meyer Chrysostom’s interpretation, which applies it to Christ’s burial, Phil- 
ippi (Kirch. Glaubens. iv. 1, 171) refers it to the Incarnation. 


XLIT. Ver. 10. iva rAnpadoy ta ravra. 


Luther : ‘‘That in all things he might work all, and without Him nothing be 
done, thought, or spoken’’ (Randglossen, Er]. ed. Ixiv. 241). 


486 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


XLII. Ver. 13. rij¢ extyvdoeuc. 


“Qlear and exact knowledge” (Cremer). See Note XIII., chap. te, eT 
‘«‘ Christians are not to be, as in times past, some fully informed in one section 
of truth, but erring through defective information on other points concerning 
the Saviour—some with a superior knowledge of the merits of His death, and 
others with a quicker perception of the beauties of His life . . . but they are 
to be characterized by the completeness and harmony of their ideas of the 
power, the work, the history, the love, and the glory of the Son of God” 
(Eadie). 


XLIV. Ver. 13. ei¢ wérpov x.T.A. 


facxia has rarely in classical Greek the meaning of ‘‘stature,’’ but often used 
of ‘the flower or prime of life, i.e., from 17 to 45,’ and of women, ‘‘ marriage- 
able age” (Liddell and Scott). 


XLV. Ver. 16. dia mdone adje TH¢ Extyopnyiac. 
Pny 


The use of d¢7¢ for joint is found in Aristotle, whose terminology is decisive 
as to the propricty of the application. Col. ii. 19 seems to clearly settle the 
fact that it must have such meaning here. So Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, Riddle. 


XLVI. Ver. 18. Sua 7Av dyvovav k.T.A. 


Neither Tischendorf nor Westcott and Hort approve of the deletion of the 
commas, which Meyer finds necessary for his interpretation. There is nothing 
difficult in tracing their habitual ignorance to repeated acts whereby the light 
of the truth was excluded. An effort to be ignorant results in a state of com- 
plete darkening of understanding. Neither is this in any way inconsistent 
with the doctrine of original sin. The earlier condition of the heathen was 
one in which they were more susceptible to the movements of divine grace. 
‘For this two-fold condition’’ (i.e., of darkening and alienation), ‘the apostle 
gives a two-fold ground, whose members mutually condition each other, because 
they are attached to one and the same subject. . . . The condition of their 
darkening and alienation from the life that is of God depends upon their in- 
ner ignorance and hardness of heart. That this inner ignorance is not a mere 
limitation of the understanding, is expressed by the combination with the 
tapwotco’ (Harless). 


XLVII. Ver. 21. xa9d¢ éorw adnbera. 


There is an antithesis here to the év pataidéryte of ver. 17. As opposed to 
this vanity, the quality of their teaching is here described as truth, while ‘‘ the 
next verse contains its substance ’’ (Eadie) or contents. 


XLVII. Ver. 22. tov radatov dv§pwrov. 


‘©A bold and vivid personification of the old nature we inherit from Adam, 
the source and seat of original and actual transgression’’ (Eadie). ‘Our 
former unconverted self ; personification of our whole sinful condition before 
regeneration (Rom. vi. 6 ; Col. iii. 9), and opposed to the kasvo¢ or véog dvOpwro¢ 


NOTES. 487 


(ver. 24 ; Col. iii. 10)” (Ellicott). ‘*The natural man in the corruption of his 
sin” (Braune). Meyer’s exception to the reference of this by Calovius to orig- 
inal sin is at once answered by the fact that, with Calovius, original sin is the 
sinful habit, which begins to be laid aside in regeneration. The examination 
of the controversy with Rome on this topic in Apology of Augsburg Confession, 
Art il., pp. 75-83, will give much light here. 


XLIX. Ver. 26. ézi rapopyiouw budv. 


«The capopytoudc of Eph. iv. 26 is not dpy7, however we may translate it 
‘wrath.’ This it cannot be ; for the zapop) copuoc there is absolutely forbidden ; 
the sun shal] not go down upon it ; whereas under certain conditions dpy7 is a 
righteous passion to entertain. The Scripture has nothing incommon with the 
stoic’s absolute condemnation of anger ; it takes no such loveless view of other 
men’s sins as his who said: ‘Disturb not thyself ; if any one sins, he sins to 
himself’ (Mare. Ant. iv. 46). It inculcates no apathy, but only a restraint over 
passion . . . The Scripture permits, and not only permits, but when the right 
occasion for it has arrived, demands it. . . . There is a ‘wrath of God,’ a 
wrath also of the merciful Son of Man (Mark iii. 5), and a wrath which right- 
eous men not only may, but, as they are righteous, must feel ; nor can there 
be a surer and sadder token of an utterly prostrate moral condition than the 
not being able to be angry with sin—and sinners.” .. . Yet ‘‘there is that 
which may cleave even to a righteous anger, the rapopyouéc, the irritation, the 
exasperation, which must be dismissed at once’ (Trench, Synonyms, First 
Series, 180, 181). 


” 


488 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


CHAPTER Ve 


Ver. 2. yuac... nuov)] Tisch. [Treg. and West. and Hort]: tude... 
tudv. But the witnesses for this are of unequal value and not strong enough, 
specially as the pronoun of the second person naturally presented itself from 
the context. — Ver. 4. kai aicyp. cai] A D* E* F G, min. Sahid. Vulg. It. and 
Fathers of some importance: 7 aicyp. 7. Approved by Griesb., adopted by 
Lachm. and Riick., and rightly so ; the Recepla appears to be an old alteration 
in accordance with ver. 3, where also it is only at the third vice that 7 comes 
in. S* has kai aicyp. #, as also Syr. p.—7ra oi« dvijxovta] AB ®, 31, 67, 73, 
Clem. Antioch. Ephr, Cyr. : é ov« avjxev. So Lachm. and [Tisch. Treg. West. 
and Hort] Rick. ; commended also by Griesb. An interpretation, probably 
oceasioned by the fact that the following aAAa waAdAov evyap. was regarded as 
the contrast to ra od« avyxovra. — Ver. 5. tore] Elz.: éoré, in opposition to far 
preponderant evidence. Defended, itx: true, by Matth. (‘‘ pluribus Graecis in 
mentem venire poterat jore,” ‘‘ icre could occur to most Greeks,” but evidently a 
mechanical miswriting or alteration ; rejected also by Reiche, Hofmann and 
Ewald.—- 6¢ éorev eidwAodatpyc| [Lachm. West. and Hort], following only B &, 
67*** lect. 40, Cyr. Jer., has 6 éorw eidwoAatpyc, Which Milland Griesb. recom- 
mended. FG, Vulg. It. Goth. Victorinus, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster have 6 éorw 
eldwhvdatpeia. By the latter the original 6c éoriv eidwhoratpyc, Which seemed to 
require an explanation, that it might not be misunderstood, was explained, and 
subsequently eiSwAoAdtpn¢ was restored, whereby the reading of Lachm. arose.— 
Ver. 9. gwtéc¢] Elz. Matth.: zvetywaroc, in opposition to decisive witnesses. 
Gloss from Gal. v. 25. — Ver. 17. ovvievtec] A B &, min, Chrys. ms. Damasce. 
Jer. : ovviere. So Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Rick, Harless, 
however, has ovvidvrec, after D* FG. The latter, though doubtless to be ac- 
cented curovrec (see on Rom. iii. 11), is as the less common form to be pre- 
ferred ; the imperative is a gloss from the context, supported by no version, — 
Ver. 19. xvevyartixaic] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., and is 
bracketed by Lachm. It might have been introduced from Col. iii. 16 ; but 
the evidence for the omission is too weak, and the omission might easily be 
occasioned by the homoeoteleuton. — év 79 xapdig] Lachm, and Riick. : év raic 
xapdiatc, after important witnesses (not B). But the plural would in itself very 
naturally occur to the copyists, and still more from the comparison of Col. iii. 
16. — Ver. 21. Xpicrov] Elz. : Ocor, in opposition to decisive witnesses, among 
which D EF G, codd. of It. add ’Ijc0i, some before, some after the Xp. Mill 
uready rightly judges that ¢é8o0c Ocod was the more current conception, whereby 
O00 (K : kvpiov) was brought in ; ¢6Goc Xpiorod does not occur elsewhere. —Ver. 
22. After avdpdow, Elz. Scholz have trordccecbe, and Lachm. [and Treg. ] 
irotaccécbwoav. The latter in accordance with A %, min. Copt. Vulg. Goth. 
Clem. (once) Basil, Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag. D E F G, lect. 19, It. Syr. have 
the Recepta, but before roic idiow. These diversities only confirm the proba- 
bility that the verb was originally wanting, as also B, codd. Gr. in Jer. Clem. 


CHAP? Yo, Lis 489 


(once) have no verb, The verb, deleted by Tisch. and rejected by Reiche [and 
West. and Hort], is an expedient to help the construction. -— Ver. 23. avjp (Elz. : 
6 dvyp) and avtéc (Elz.: xat adtdc éo7r) rest on decisive critical evidence ; 
although Reiche again defends the Recepta, which is a smoothing of the text.— 
Ver, 24. idioic] is, following B D* E* F G8, min. codd. It., with Lachm. Treg. 
Tisch. [West. and Hort], to be deleted as an addition from ver. 22.— Ver. 25. 
éavTov]| is wanting in A B &, min. Clem. Orig. Cyr. Chrys. Deleted by Lachmm. 
Tisch. and Riick. But if anything were added to yvvaixac, it would be most 
natural to add idiac from ver. 22. The duov read in F G (Vulg. It. etc. : vestras) 
is an explanation of éavTor, and tells in favor of this, the dropping out of which 
is to be explained from its superfluousness. — Ver. 27. avréc] Elz. : aityv, in 
opposition to far preponderating testimony ; altered from a failure to under- 
stand the emphatic aivrdéc. — Ver. 28. Lachm. has rightly adopted, on decisive 
authority, ojtwe¢ Kai of avdpeg boetAovarv, B has the order ofrwe¢ 69. 
kal of dvdpoc. — Ver. 29. Instead of Xpioréc, Elz. has xvpsoc, in opposition to 
decisive evidence. — Ver. 30. éx Ti¢ capKog atov Kai ix Tv dor. av’Tod] is wanting 
in A B S8* 17, 67** al., Copt. Aeth. Method. and perhaps Ambrosiast. Deleted 
by Lachm. [Treg. Tisch. West. and Hort], suspected also by Mill and Griesb., 
defended by Reiche. The omission has arisen either from mere accident, by 
passing in the process of copying from the first av7ov immediately to the third, 
or more probably through design, from want of perceiving the suitableness of 
the words in the context, and judging their meaning inappropriate. If they 
had been added from the LXX. Gen. ii. 23, we should have found written éx 
TOV doTéwv avTod Kai éx TIH¢ capKo¢ abtod. —Ver. 31. Tov Tat. aiTod kK. T. unt.) 
Lachm. and Tisch. on preponderant testimony have merely ratépa kal puyrépa. 
Rightly ; the Recepta is from the LXX.— rpd¢ tv yvv.] Lachm. and Rick. : 
7H yovacki, in accordance doubtless with many and considerable witnesses (not 
B), but an alteration in conformity with the LXX. (according to A, Ald.) and 
Matt. xix. 5, 


ContTENTS.—Exhortation to the imitation of God, to love, as Christ 
through His sacrificial death has loved us (vy. 1, 2). Warning against un- 
chastity, avarice, and other vices, inasmuch as they exclude from the Mes- 
sianic kingdom (vv. 3-5). The readers are not to let themselves be deceived 
by empty words, and not to hold fellowship with the vicious ; for, as those 
who from being dark have become Christianly enlightened, they are under 
obligation to walk accordingly, and to have no fellowship with the works 
of darkness, but rather to rebuke them, which isa course as necessary as it 
is salutary (vv. 6-14). They are therefore to be careful in their walk as 
wise (vv. 15-17), and not to become drunken, but to become full of the Holy 
Spirit, which fulness must express itself by alternate utterance in’ psalms 
and hymns, by singing praise in the silence of the heart, and by continual 
Christian thanksgiving towards God (vy. 18-20). Subject the one to the 
other in the fear of Christ, the wives are to render to their husbands true 
Christian subjection (vv. 21-24), and the men to their wives true Christian 
love (vv. 25-33), in connection with which, however, the wife owes rever- 
ence to the husband (ver. 83). 

Vv. 1, 2. If Paul has just said xafec cai 6 Ocd¢ éxapicato buiv, he now, on 
the ground of these words (oiv), sums up under one head the duty of love 


490 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


expressed in detail, iv. 32, and that as imitation of God by a loving walk, 

such as stands in appropriate relation to the love shown to us by Christ, 

which serves as pattern for our conduct. With this is expressed the specific 
character and degree of the love required as an imitation of God (John xiii. 

34, xv. 13). Accordingly, ver. 1 corresponds to the kato kai 6 cdg év Xp. 

éyapicaro as a whole, and ver. 2 to the év Xpior@ in particular ; yivecbe ov at 
the same time corresponds emphatically to the yiveoGe dé of iv. 82, introducing 
in another form—flowing from the last words of ver. 82—the same thing 
as was introduced by yiveode dé — Og téxva ayar.] in accordance with your 
relation to God as His beloved children. ayazyj7a denotes neither amabiles, 

‘“lovely,” 1 nor good, excellent children, nor is it to be said with Vater : ‘ut 
solent liberi, qui tune diliguntur,” ‘‘as children are wont, who are then 
loved; but what a love has God shown to us by the viodeoia (1 John iii. 

1; Rom. vy. 8,5, al.) ! Now, to be God’s beloved child, and not to become 
like the loving Father, how contradictory were this! See Rom. vi. 1 ff.; 1 
John iv. 7 ff.; Matt. v.45. Yet the expression ‘‘ imitators of God” is found 
with Paul only here. — xai] annexes wherein this imitation of God must. 
consist, namely, therein, that Jove is the element in which their life-walk 
takes place—love, such as also Christ has displayed towards us.—xai rapédwkev 
x.7.2.] Practical proof of the 7yéryoev. Comp. ver. 25 ; Rom. v. 8 f.; Gal. 
ii. 20. Paul might have written zapécrycev, but wrote rapédwx., because he 
thought of the matter as a self-surrender. The notion of sacrifice does not 
lie in the verb, but in the attributes.2> We may add that with zapéd. we 
have not to supply ci¢ bavaror,* but rH OcH* belongs to it, to the connecting 

of which with eic doy evwdiac® the order of the words is opposed (comp. Ex. 

xxix. 18; Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, xxiii. 13, 18 ; Gen. vill. 21); since the emphane 
prefixing of 7 Océ, if it belonged to ei¢ dou. eiwd., would be quite without 
reason, inasmuch as there is not any kind of contrast (for instance, to human 
satisfaction) in the case. —irép jor] for our behalf, in order to reconcile us 
to God. The idea of substitution is not expressed in the preposition,® but 
lies in the conception of a sacrifice, under which the N. T. represents the 
death of Christ,” and that, indeed, as expiatory sacrifice. See on Rom, v. 

6; Gal. iii. 18. — xpocdopay x. Suciav| as an offering and a sacrifice. The 
latter (M37) is a more precise definition of the former ; for mpooopa is every- 
thing in general which is brought as an offering, whether it be bloody or 
unbloody (ID). Comp. Ecclus. xiv. 11. Of the sacrifice of Christ, also 
Heb. x. 10, 14. Harless explains the joining of the two substantives to the 
effect that Christ, as He was a sacrifice for others (Svciav), also presented 
Himself as an offering (xpoodopdv). But, apart from the fact that thus Paul 
must logically have written Yvoiav x. rpocdopav (asin Ps, xl, 7; Heb. x. 5), 


1 Zanchius. ®See also van Hengel, ad Mom. I. 
2 ™In opposition to Hofmann’s objection. p. 459 f. 
3 Grotius, Harless, and others. 7In opposition to Hofmann, Schrifibew. 


4 Which Bengel, Hofmann, and others II. 1, p. 883 f., who makes the apostle mere- 
with less simplicity attach to mpood. x. ly say, ‘‘that Christ has gone the way of 
Svatav. death, in order as our well-pleasing repre: 

5 Luther, Koppe, Meier, Harless. sentative to come to God.” 


CHAP. V., 33 491 
both words, in fact, state in what character Christ presented Himself to God, 
both express the objective relation, while the subjective relation of Christ is 
conveyed in rapédoxev éavtov trip yudv. Comp. 1 Pet. 1. 18. —eic donq 
evodiac] so that it became for Him an odor of fragrance, figurative designation 
of its acceptableness to God (Phil. iv. 18), after the Hebrew DV3-1 (Lev. i. 
9, 13, 17, ii. 12, iii. 5), which was the original veal, anthropopathic basis of 
the idea of the acceptableness of a sacrifice to God.’ The underlying notion 
of the burning of that which was offered did not of course come into account 
in the case of the iAacrjpiov of Jesus, but the thought of the expression is in 
the sacrificial designation of the atoning deed independent of its origin.* 
—The question whether Christ is here in reality presented as an expiatory 
sacrifice, or merely as one who in His self-surrender well-pleasing to God 
has left us a pattern,*? has been raised by the Socinians,* who denied the 
former,’ is decided not merely by izép juov, but by the view prevailing 
throughout the N. T., and specially with Paul, of the death of Jesus as the 
idact#piov, Rom. ili. 25 (comp. also Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. i. 18; 1 Tim. 
li. 6), which also is contained here in Gvoiay.£ Certainly the main point in 
the connection of our passage is the love displayed by Christ, but the practi- 
cal proof of this love is represented as that which it just really was, namely, 
as expiatory sacrifice ; in opposition to which the addition ei¢ dcp. eiwd., 
which in the O. T., save in Lev. iv. 31,7 1s not used of expiatory sacrifices, 
is not to be urged, inasmuch as—even apart from Lev. /.c.—Christ offered up 
Himself, consequently His expiatory sacrifice was at the same time a voluntary 
offering. 

Ver. 3. Aé] leading over to another portion of the exhortation. — axa¥apcia 
and mdcovesia, quite as at iv. 19, the two main vices of heathendom. The 
latter thus is here neither insatiability in lust,’ nor ‘‘imprimis de prostibulis, 
quae sunt vulgato corpore, ut quaestum lucrentur,”’ ‘‘ especially of courtesans 
who prostitute their bodies for pay,” Koppe, Stolz, but : avarice. — 7] is 
not equivalent to xa,’ nor yet explicative,’? but disjunctive, separating another 
vice from the correlative ropveia kai taoa axaSapoia; “ neither fornication and 
every kind of uncleanness, nov avarice, nov shamelessness (ver. 4), etc. 
— pndé ovouatéiodw év byiv| not once be named, etc. ; ixavac 75 wvoapov Tov elpy- 
pévov bréderfe, Kai avTag avTOV Tpoonyopiac THo pviunco éEopicae KeAeboac, ‘‘ He 
sufficiently indicated that which was impure in the subjects mentioned, 
enjoining that their very names be banished from memory,” Theodoret,"*— 


1 See Gen. viii. 21; Ewald, Alterth. p. 31. 

2 Without that which is symbolized in 
‘oouy evwoias, the sacrifice of Christ would 
not have been propitiatory. Comp. on the 
expression itself the Homeric xvicans dvs 
avTun, ‘Sweet savor of fat,’ Od. xii. 369. 

3 So Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 113; Riickert. 

*See Catech. Racov. 484, ed. Oeder, 
p. 1006. 

> See also Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 716 f. 

6Comp. Lechler, apost. und nachapost. 
Zeitalter, p. 77: Ebrard, Lehre von der stell- 
vertrel. Genugth. p. 68 ff. ; Philippi, Dogm. 


IV. 2, p. 294 ff. 

7 See, with regard to this passage, Oehler 
in Herzog’s Hneykl. X. p. 648. 

8 As Heinsius (corntroverted by Salmasius, 
de foen. Trap. p. 121 ff.), Estius, Locke, 
Baumgarten, Michaelis, Zachariae, and 
others would take it. 

® Salmasius, Schleusner. 

10 Heinsius. 

11 Comp. Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 275 f. 

12 Comp. ver. 12. Dio Chrys. p. 360 B: 
otaow dé ovdé ovomacery akétov map’ vmiv, “It 
is improper for you even to mention the 


492 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
Kadac mpérer dytowc] namely, that these vices should not once be mentioned 
among them. So aicypa dvéuara, ‘‘ such disgraceful words” ’ are they ! 

Ver. 4. Alc ypéryc] abomination, disgraceful conduct.? Most expositors, in- 
cluding Riickert, Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen,* limit it to disgraceful utter- 
ances, but without warrant of linguisticusage (this would be aicypodoyia, see 
Col. iii. 8; Xen. de rep. Lac. v. 6 ; Aristot. derep. vii. 17 ; Polyb. viii. 18. 8, 
xii. 13. 3) ; or in the context, in which it is only the following elements 
that contain the unchristian speaking. — wwpodoyia] is the carrying on of in- 
sipid, foolish talk.4 — evtparedia] signifies properly ready versatility from rpéra 
and 3), urbanity ; then specially a witty, jesting manner ; and in a bad 
sense, as here, the witticism of frivolity, scurrilitas, ‘‘ scurrility.” > [See Note 
L., p. 524.]— rad ob« avijxovra] as that which is unseemly. Comp. Winer, 
pp. 221, 888 f. It refers only to wwporoyia and eitparedia, since for aicypéryg 
such a characteristic description would be entirely superfluous, and aA2a waArov 
ebyaptotia] points back merely to those peccata oris, ‘‘ oral sins.”—aAAd pardov 
evyapiotia| From the preceding ju7dé dvouatéodo év iuiv we have here to supply 
éotw or ywwéoVw év ipiv, which is contained therein, in accordance with a well- 
known brachylogy.® evyapioria is, according to standing usage,’ not grace- 
Sulness of speech, as Jerome, Calvin,® Salmasius, Cajetanus, Hammond, Sem- 
ler, Michaelis, Wahl, Meier, and others would take it, which would be 
evyapt, but giving of thanks, in which case there results a contrast far more 
in keeping with the Christian character and the profoundly vivid piety of 
the apostle (comp. Col. ii. 7, iii. 15, 17; 1 Thess. v.18). Gratitude towards 
God (for the salvation in Christ), expressing itself in their discourse, is to 
supersede among Christians the two faults before mentioned, and to sanctify 
their oral intercourse. ‘‘ Linguae abusui opponitur sanctus et tamen laetus 
usus,” ‘‘the holy and yet joyful use of the tongue is opposed to its abuse,” 
Bengel. Morus erroneously refers it to thanksgiving towards others; ‘‘ the 
language of courtesy.” 

Ver. 5. Paul returns to the vices mentioned ver. 3, and assigns the reason 
for their prohibition. ——iore y.véckovrec| indicative ; Paul appeals to the con- 
sciousness of the readers, which, considering their familiarity with the prin- 
ciple laid down, was at all events more natural to him, and more in keep- 
ing with the destination as a motive (yap), than the imperative sense.® The 
participle, however, is not here to be explained from the well-known 


faction.” Herod. i. 188: dooa 8 ode moréecy 41: 


ovK e£eatt, TavTa ovde Aéyeww éEeorte, ‘* What it 
is not allowable to do, itis not allowable 
even to mention.” Dem. 1259, 17: &@ Kat 
ovopaGerv OKvycarm’ av, ‘* which I would hesi- 
tate even to mention.” 

1 Plat. ep. p. 344 B, and Stallbaum in Joc. 

2 Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A. 

3 Not Matthies and Harless. 

4 Antig. de Mirab. 126: pwpodrwyias Kai 
adodecxias, “idle talk and frivolity,” Arist. 
H, A.i. 11; Plut. Mor. 504 A. 

* See in general, Wetstein ad loc. ; Dis- 
sen, ad Pind. p. 180; Kriiger on Thue. ii. 


§ Kiihner, IT. p. 604. : 

7 Comp. also Loesner, Obss. p. 345 f. 

8“*Sermones nostros vera suavitate et 
gratia perfusos esse debere, quod fiet, si 
miscebimus utile dulci,” ‘‘ Our conversation 
should be pervaded with true sweetness 
and grace, which will occur if we will 
mingle the useful with the sweet.” 

® Vulgate, Valla, Castalio, Vatablus, 
Erasmus Schmid, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, 
Bengel, Koppe, Riickert, Matthies, Ols- 
hausen, Bleek, and others. 


CHAP: Vs, 5: 493 
Hebrew and Greek mode of connecting the finite verb with its participle,’ 
inasmuch as yevdéck. is another verb ; but it denotes the way and manner of 
the knowing.*—7rdc. . . ov« éyer}] See on iv. 29, and Winer, p. 155. — dc 
éotwv eidwAoAatpye| applies to the covetous man, whom Paul declares in a meta- 
phorical sense to be an idolater, inasmuch as such an one has made money 
and property his god, and has fallen away from the service of the true God 
(comp. Matt. vi. 24). Comp. Phil. iii. 19 ; Col. iii. 5; and the passages 
from Philo and the Rabbins, which express the same mode of regarding 
covetousness and other vices, in Wetstein, and Schéttgen.? Doubtless zopveia 
and axaapoia are also subtle idolatry ; but only with regard to avarice 
does Paul, here and at Col. iii. 5, bring it into special relief, in order with 
thoroughly deterrent force to make this felt kav’ éoyfv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” 
as antichristian (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 10). For Paul, in particular, whose all- 
sacrificing self-denial (2 Cor. vi. 10, xi. 27) stood so sharply contrasted with 
that self-seeking passion, such a peculiar branding of wAeoveEia was very nat- 
ural. Zachariae, Koppe,‘ Meier, Harless, as also Fritzsche, * refer 6¢ éotvv eidw2.. 
to all three subjects. Unnecessary deviation from that which after the singu- 
lar of the relative must most naturally suggest itself to the reader, and op- 
posed to the parallel Col. iii. 5, where ric éoriv eidwAoAarTpeia has its reference 
merely to the zAcovegia assured by the use of the article ryv mAcoveeiav, and it 
is only afterwards that the comprehension of the before-named vices by 
means of the neuter plural dv’ @ comes in. — ov« éyee KAypovouiav] Comp. on 
i. 11. By means of the present tense the certain future relation is realized as 
present.®° —év 7H Baows. tov Xpiotov x. Ocov] for the Messianic kingdom be- 
longs to Christ and God, since Christ and God shall have the government of 
this kingdom. Christ opens it at His Parousia, and rules it under the su- 
preme dominion of God (1 Cor. xv. 27) until the final consummation, where- 
upon He yields it up to God as the sole ruler (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). But, after 
Beza, Zanchius, Glass, Bengel,’ Riickert and Harless have explained it, on 
the ground of the non-repetition of the article : ‘‘of Him, who is Christ and 
God,” so that Christ is here spoken of as God.* Incorrectly, since @ed¢ had 
no need of an article (see Winer, p. 110 f.; comp. BaciAsia Oeov, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 
10, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21), and Christ, in accordance with the strict monothe- 
ism of the apostle (comp. iv. 6), could not be called by him @ed¢ in the abso- 
lute sense, and never has at all been called by him Gedc. See on Rom, ix. 


1 Winer, p. 317 f. 

= This you are aware of from your own 
knowledge, so that I need not first to instruct 
you with regard to it, that, ete. Comp. the 
classic opay kai axovwy oida, ‘*I know by see- 
ing and hearing,’ Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 14. 
Tovrto thus applies to the following or, 
not to ver. 3 f.,as Winer maintains. See 
Kihner, II. § 631. 2. 

3 Horae, p. 779. 

4 Koppe, we may add, allows a choice be- 
tween two arbitrary alterations of the lit- 
eral meaning. The sense in his view is 
either: “quae quidem flagilia regnant inter 


gentiles idololatras,”’ ‘‘ which crimes prevail 
indeed among Gentile idolaters,” or: ‘‘ as 
little as an idolater.”’ 

5 De conformat. N. T. critica Lachm. I. 
1841, p. 46. 

§ See Bernhardy, p. 371. 

7 Comp. also Calovius. 

8 Yet Riickert is of opinion, inconsistently 
enough, that the question whether Paul in 
reality here meant it so cannot be decided, 
because he is not here speaking of Christ 
in general, but only incidentally making 
mention of His kingdom, 


494 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


5: Col. ii. 2.?. The designation of the kingdom as faovieia of Christ and of 
God is climactic (comp. on Gal. i. 1), and renders the warning element more 
solemn and more powerful to deter, through the contrast with the supreme 
holiness of the kingdom.? — On the proposition itself, comp. Gal. v. 21. 

Ver. 6. Let no one deceive you with empty words! In those against whom 
the warning is here given, Grotius sees partly heathen philosophers, partly 
Jews, which last ‘‘ omnibus Judaizantibus, quomodecunque vixissent, partem ~ 
fore dicebant in seculo altero,” ‘‘ said that for all Judaizers no matter how 
they lived there would be a part in the world to come.” Olshausen * thinks 
of frivolous Christians of antinomian sentiments, who would in future 
emerge ; Meier, of teachers of Gentile tendencies. In accordance with the 
context (é7i rove viod¢ Tio amevteiac, cvupétoyoL a’TOY, WTE yap ToTE oKéToOc) We 
have to understand Gentiles who have remained unbelieving, who in their in- 
tercourse with the Christians sought to palliate those Gentile vices, to give 
them out as matters of indifference, to represent abstaining from the same 
as groundless rigor, and thereby to entice back the Christians to the Gentile 
life. Their discourses were xévor, inasmuch as the corresponding contents, 
i.e., the truth, was wanting to them.’ — da tavra yap «.7.2.] for certainly 
very serious consequences follow these vices : on account of these vices (Sd 
raira emphatically prefixed) comes (down) the wrath of God upon the dis- 
obedient, for this vicious conduct piles up the load of guilt one day to re- 
ceive punishment (Rom. ii. 5), from which they could be liberated only by 
means of faith in Christ, the despising of whom leaves them to abide under 
the wrath of God and to encounter its judicial execution. To refer ravra 
to the deceiving with empty words,® has against it not so much the plural— 
since raira often also in classical writers denotes (see Winer, p. 146) one 
notion or thought (according to the aggregate of its several marks)—as 
rather the unsuitability of the sense in itself and to the following j7 oiv 
yiveobe k.7.A. as well as to the parallel Col. iii. 6. — 7 épyy tov Oeov] Not the 
punishment of the present life is meant,° since the dpy7 tov Ocov is the opposite 
of the Baoireia, ver. 5 ; but the wrath of God in the day of judgment, which 
future, as in ver. 5, is realized as present. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 10. —The 
vioi tH¢ ated. are here those refusing faith to the gospel, and thereby diso- 
bedient to God. It is otherwise ii. 2. Comp. Rom. xi. 30, xv. 31. 

Ver. 7. Ov] since on account of these sins, ete. — cuupétoyou avtov] abtov 
can, in keeping with the context, only be referred to the viode rao arevd., 
whose co-partners the Christians become, if they practise the same sins, 
whereby they fall from the state of reconciliation (Rom. xi. 22 ; 2 Pet. ili. 
17) and incur the divine opyf (ver. 5). Koppe’s interpretation : ‘‘ejusdem 
cum iis fortunae compotem fieri,” ‘‘to become participant of the same fort- 


1Comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. IT. p. 299 f. ; also KevoAoyia, empty talk, Plut. 


p. 203 f. Mor. p. 1069 C ; KevoAoyetv, Isa. vill. 19. 
2 Comp. also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, I. 5 Chrysostom places both explanations 
p. 207 f. side by side; comp. Theophylact and 
3 Comp. Bleek. Oecumenius. 


*i Comp Cole sit. Sis xON Ee ay, dea 6 Calvin, Meier, and others; Matthies 
Plat. Lach. p. 196 B; Dem. 821, 11; Hom. combines present and future. 
Od. xxii. 249, and the passages in Kypke, 


CHAP. V.; ‘8559. 495 
une with them,” is an importation at variance with the context (see vv. 8— 
11). — As to cuupéroyoc, see on iii. 6. 

Ver. 8. Reason assigned for the exhortation just given : For your former 
state of darkness (with which those vices were in keeping) is past ; now, 
on the other hand, ye are Christianly enlightened. ; as befits such, let your 
walk be. — jre] prefixed with significant stress, has the force of ‘a ground 
assigned as practerite, just as at Rom. vi. 17. Riickert incorrectly holds 
that Paul has omitted yév, which is at variance with good composition. The 
non-use of yév has its logical ground, and that in the fact, that the clause is 
not conceived in relation to that which thereupon confronts it by dé. Just so 
in classical writers, where pév seems to be wanting.’ —cxéroc] Abstrac- 
tum pro concreto, ‘‘ abstract for concrete,” to make the designation the 
stronger (Kiihner, II. p. 25 f.) : dark, by which the opposite of the posses- 
sion of divine truth is denoted. — viv dé «.7.A.] now on the other 
hand, since your conversion, how entirely different is it with you, 
how entirely different must your walk be! Light in the Lord are 
ye, i.e., furnished with divine truth in your fellowship with Christ, 
in whom, as the source and giver of light (ver. 14), ye live and move. 
Comp. i. 
ones. 
they are now to show themselves in their walk. 
tation comes in with the greater energy.’ 

Ver. 9. Parenthetic incitement to the observance of the preceding sum- 
mons, by holding forth the glorious fruit which the Christian illumination 
bears ; doxiwdfovrec is then (ver. 10) accompanying definition to repirarteize, 
and the jj cvycowwveite, ver. 11, continues the imperative form of address. 
For taking the participle of ver. 10 as grammatically incorrect in the sense 
of the imperative * there is absolutely no ground. — jap] for, not the merely 
explanatory namely, which introduces into the whole paraenetic chain of the 
discourse something feeble and alien. — 6 xapréc tov gwrd¢] indicates in a fig- 
urative manner the aggregate of the moral effects (kapzé¢ collective, as in 
Matt. ili. 8 ; Phil. i. 11) which the Christian enlightenment has as its result. 
Comp. on Gal. v. 22.4— év réoy ayafwcivy] se. éori, so that every kind of 
probity (ayafwc., see on Rom. xv. 14 ; Gal. v. 22), ete., is thought of as that, 
in which the fruit is contained (consists).*— dicaocivy] moral rectitude, 
Rom. vi. 13, xiv. 17. See on Phil. i. 11.°—<aiybeia] moral truth, opposed 
to hypocrisy as ethical ypeddoc, 1 Cor. v. 8; Phil. i. 18, iv. 8; John iii. 21. 


18. — oc réxva dwrtdc| as children of light, i.e., as enlightened 
Comp: (1) Thess. -v.; 6°; Luke xvi. 83 John xii. 36: As such 
Without oiv the exhor- 


1 See Kriiger, Anqd. ili. 4. 41; Bornemann, 
ad Cyrop. iii. 2. 12, Goth. ; Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 356 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 388. 

2Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510 
C; Dissen, ad Pind. Exe. II. p. 276. 

3 Bleek, following Koppe. 

4 Where what is here termed xapzr. tod 
dwtos is called xapz. trod mvevpatos. Not as 
though mvedua and das were one and the 
same thing (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. p. 390), 
but the Spirit, through whom God and 


Christ dwell in the heart, Rom. viii. 9, pro- 
duces the $as inthe heart (2 Cor. iv.6; Eph. 
i. 17 f.), so that the fruit of the Spivit is al- 
so the fruit of the light, and vice versd. 
Nor is the fruit of the word sown upon the 
good ground anything different. 

5 Comp. Matthiae, p. 1342. 

6 According to Pnil. i. 11, the Christian 
moral rectitude has again its capzos in the 
several Christian virtues, which are the ex- 
pressions of its life. 


496 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

The general nature of these three words, which together embrace the whole 
of Christian morality, and that under the three different points of view 
‘‘ good, right, true,” forbids the assumption of more special contrasts, as 
e.g. in Chrysostom : ayafwc. is opposed to wrath, dccavoc. to seduction and 
deceit, 4270. to lying. Others present the matter otherwise ; see Theophy- 
lact, Erasmus, Grotius. 

Ver. 10. Aoxiydfovrec] after the parenthesis in ver. 9, a modal definition of 
the walk called for in ver. 8, which is to be prosecuted under a searching 
consideration of what is well-pleasing to Christ (r@ kvpiw), as to which sub- 
jectively the Christian conscience (Rom. xiv. 23) and objectively the gospel 
of Christ (iv. 20 ; Rom. i. 16 ; Phil. i. 27) give the decision. Comp. ver. 
15> Rom. xn? 5-1 hess. vy. 2h. 

Ver. 11. Svyxowwveire] have not fellowship with (the disobedient) im the 
works of darkness (comp. ver. 7 ; and as regards the dative, see on Phil. iv. 
14), z.e., in those works, which are wrought in consequence of spiritual dark- 
ness—of the ethical frame of mind opposed to divine truth. Comp. Rom. 
xiii, 12. They are the épya rovypa (Col. i. 21), the épya tHe capkdg (Gal. v. 
21), the vexpa épya (Heb. vi. 1), the épya aceBeiag (Jude 15). — roic axdpracc| 
the non-fruitful ones, inasmuch, namely, as they draw no blessing after them. 
The perdition which they have as result (Rom. vi. 21, vill. 13 ; Gal. vi. 8 ; 
Eph. iv. 22, al.) is conceived as negation of blessedness (comp. ver. 5). 
Comp. épya vexpd, Heb. vi. 1, ix. 14. —addov 62 Kai] but rather even, imo adeo. 
See on Gal. iv. 9; Rom. ix. 34. Bengel well remarks : ‘‘ non satis absti- 
nere est,” ‘‘it is not enough to abstain.” — é2éyyere] reprove them (these 
works), which occurs when they are not passed over in silence and indul- 
gently excused, but are held up with censure to the doer, and have their 
immorality discovered and brought home, in order to produce amendment. 
This chastening reproof is an oral one, since the context does not intimate 
anything else ; not one de facto, ‘‘ expressed in deeds,” * not ‘‘ dictis et fac- 
tis,” ‘*by words and deeds.” ? Comp. on John iii. 20, xvi. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 
24. 

Ver. 12 assigns the reason for the demand just expressed, éAéyyere, by 
pointing to what quite specially needed the é2éyyew,—by pointing to the 
secret vicious acts of the unbelievers, which are so horrible, that one must 
feel ashamed even but to mention them. Thus, consequently, the ééyyere 
has its ground assigned as concerns its great necessity. — kpvdj] not elsewhere 
in the N. T.* in the protasis has the emphasis,—hence it is prefixed,-_and 
denotes that which takes place in secret, in the darkness of seclusion. More 
special references, such as to the horrible excesses in connection with the 
heathen mysteries,* or even to the ‘‘ familiam Simonis Magi, quae erat infanda- 


1“Sancta nimirum et honesta vita,” 
“doubtless a holy and honorable life,” 
Beza: comp. Erasmus, Cameron, Zanchius. 


2 Bengel; comp. Theophylact, Photius, 
Calovius, Holzhausen, Olshausen, and 
others. 


3 But see Deut. xxviii. 57; Wisd. xviii. 9: 


3 Macc. iv. 12; Xen. Symp. v. 8; Pind. Ol. 
i. 75; Soph. Trach. 686, Antig. 85 ; to be writ- 
ten with Iota subsecriptum, Ellendt, Lew. 
Soph. I. p. 992; Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. 
p. 6 f. 

4 Elsner, Wolf, Michaelis, Holzhausen. 


CHAP. V., 12. 497 


rum libidinum magistra,” ‘‘establishment of Simon Magus which was the 
mistress of dreadful lusts,” ! have just as little warrant in the context as the 
weakening of the meaning of the word by Morus, who understands thereby 
the mores domesticos, ‘‘domestic habits,” of the Gentiles. According to 
Koppe,? Meier, Harless, and Olshausen, the xpv¢f yevdueva are not meant to 
be specially the secret deeds of vice, but the épya tov oxdrove in general, 
which are so designated in accordance with the view conditioned by oxéroc.$ 
But against this may be urged, first, the fact that oxéroc¢ (here in the ethical 
sense) and xpvd@ are quite different notions, inasmuch as manifest vice also 
is an épyov Tov cxétovc, whereas only the peccata occulta, ‘‘ secret sins,” take 
place xpvéy ; secondly, the emphasis, which the prefixing of xpvd7 demands 
for this word, and which, if «ovd7 denoted nothing special, would be entire- 
ly lost, so that Paul might have written merely ra yap yuwéueva bw adrov ; 
thirdly, the contrast of the following ¢avepotvra, which presupposes in the 
éhéyxew something which had been done secretly ;* and lastly, that it would 
in fact be quite an exaggerated assertion to say of the sins of the Gentiles gen- 
erally, that it is a shame even to mention them. — iz’ aitév] by the viol ric 
areieiac. — kai Aéyew | even only * to say, what they in secret do, one must be 
ashamed.® The tacit contrast is the zoeiv of the doers. Compare the pdé 
of ver. 3. 


Remark.—The confirmatory relation of ver. 12 to what precedes has 
been very variously apprehended, and with various definitions of the sense 
itself. Calvin, anticipating, holds that the intention is to state what is 
accomplished by the éAeyéic ; thereby light is brought into their secret things, 
“ut sua turpitudine pudefiant,’’ ‘‘that they may become ashamed of their 
baseness,” comparing 1 Cor. xiv. 24. Of this there is mention only in the 
sequel. Entirely at variance with the words is the view of Grotius (comp. 
Calovius): ‘nam nisi id fiat, audebunt etiam clam turpiora,” ‘for unless he 
were to do this, they will dare secretly even baser things.’’ Bengel (comp. 
already in Oecumenius) finds in ver. 12 the cause adduced, ‘‘cur indefinite 
loquatur ver. 11 de operibus tenebrarum, cum fructum lucis ver. 9 definite de- 
scripserit,’’ ‘‘ why he speaks indefinitely, ver. 11, of the works of darkness when 
he definitely described, ver. 9, the fruit of light.” Imported, and opposed to 
the emphatic xpv¢7. While, moreover, Koppe translates yap by doubtless [zwar], 
Rickert wishes at least to supply a doubtless. ‘‘Doubtless their secret sins are 
not of such kind that they can be mentioned with honor, yet it belongs to you, 
as children of the light, to convince them of the wickedness of their actings.”’ 
But the supplying of év is pure invention. See on ver. 8. Quite mistaken 
also is the explanation of Meier: ‘‘ Yes, reprove them severely and openly to 
the face ; for the merely unconcerned speaking and telling of such deeds of 
shame secretly committed is likewise disgraceful, unworthy, and mean.” This 


1 Estius. tioned and unlawful.” 
2 Flagitia quaevis, ‘“‘ any kind of crimes.” 5 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 136. 
3 See Harless. ®§ Comp. Plat. Rep, p. 465 C : ocv@ Kat Aéyewv, 


4 Comp. Heliodorus, viii. p. 397 : 6 rHs Sikys “T hesitate even to mention,’ Dem. 1262, 11: 
OPOadmos eAcyywv Kal TA aunvuTA Kpvdia Kat  & wOAAHY alaoxVryv ExeL Kat A€yewy, ‘* Which are 
abéuita dwtigwr, “the eye of justice con- very shameful even to mention,” and the 
victing and enlightening secrets unmen- passages in Wetstein. 


32 


498 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Paul would at least have expressed thus: 70 yap Aéyew povov (antithesis to 7d 
éhéyyewv) Ta Kpugy br’ adT@v ywvdueva aicxp. éott. Impossible, likewise, is Holz- 
hausen’s interpretation : ‘‘ The sins committed in the darkness of the heathen 
mysteries the Christians are not to disclose; they are not even to utter the names 
thereof, they are tooabominable.’’ Apart from the consideration how singular 
such a precept must appear face to face with the decidedly moral character of 
the apostle, apart also from the fact that the mysteries are purely imported (see 
above), such a view should have been precluded as well by the yap in itself 
(since, in fact, no counterpart of kpvdq precedes), as by the succeeding ra dé 
xavrta, which, according to Holzhausen, is meant to signify the vices, ‘which 
can endure your light.” Following Anselm, Piscator, Vorstius, Zanchius, 
Flatt, Harless finally discovers in ver. 12 the assigning of a reason not for the 
éhéyyete, Which is held to follow only with ver. 13, but for u7 cvyKxowvwveite roc 
épyoue Tole dkdpT. Tov oxérov¢: ‘‘ for even but to mention their secret deeds is a 
shame, to say nothing of doing them.’ But against this the right apprehension 
of the emphatic xpvg7 (see above) is decisive ; moreover, the exhortation “7 
ovykolvwveite K.T.A., has already, in what precedes, such repeated and such 
specifically Christian grounds assigned for it (vv. 3, 4, 5, 8, as also further 7roi¢ 
axaprocc, ver. 11), that the reader, after a new thought has been introduced 
with ywaiAov, could not at all expect a second ground to be assigned for the 
previous one, least of all such a general one—-containing no essentially Christian 
eround—as would be afforded by ver. 12, but rather would expect a ground 
to be assigned for the new thought mdAAov dé nai éAéyyere Which had just been 
introduced. 


Ver. 13. The assigning of grounds for that precept, waAdov dé kat éAéyyere, 
is continued, —being attached by means of the contradistinguishing dé,—in- 
asmuch as there is pointed out the salutary action of the Christian light 
which is brought to bear by means of the required ¢7.éyyew upon all those 
secret deeds of shame : But everything (all those secret sins), when it is re- 
proved, when you carry that é2éyyere into effect upon it, is by the light (ixo 
tov gwtéc has the emphasis) made manifest, is laid bare in its real moral char- 
acter, unveiled and brought into distinctness before the moral consciousness 
by the light of Christian truth which is at work in your éAéyyew ; by the 
light, I say, it is made manifest, for,—in order to prove by a general propo- 
sition that this cannot come otherwise than from the light—all that which is 
made manifest, which is brought forth from concealment and is laid open in 
its true nature, és /ight, has ceased thereby to have the nature of darkness, 
and is now of the essence of light. This demonstrative proposition is based 
upon the inference : ‘‘Quod est in effectu, ‘what it is in effect’ (gG¢ eave), 
id debet esse in causa, ‘it ought to be in cause’ (izé rod gwrdc).” Tf thus 
there is warrant for the general ray 7d gavepodu. ¢@¢ éo7r, So must there also 
be warrant for what was previously said in the Christian sense, i776 Tow 
aT d¢ davepoita. [See Note LI., p. 524seq.] From this simple explanation 
of the words it becomes at once clear that we have not, with most expositors, ! 
to attach ir rod ¢. to édeyyoueva, but to gavepodra:,? to which it is emphat- 

1JIncluding Baumgarten-Crusius and de Schmid, Estius, Bengel, Meier, Harless, 


Wette. Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek. 
2Castalio, Zanchius, Zeger, Erasmus 


CHAP. V., 13. 499 
eally prefixed ; and further, that davepotuevor is not to be taken as middle, 
in which case again various explanations have been brought out, namely, 
either : ‘“‘ZLux enim illud est, quod omnia facit manifesta,” ‘‘for that is 
light which makes all things manifest,” Tor: ‘* Omne enim illud, quod mani- 
Testa facit alia, lux est,” ‘‘for everything that makes other things man- 
ifest is light,”* or: ‘‘Quilibet autem, ‘For every one’ [ydp !], qui alios 
docet, est lux, . . . eo ipso declarat, se esse verum Christianum,” ‘‘ who 
teaches others is a light... and by this very thing declares that 
it is true Christianity,” * or : ‘‘he who does not refuse to be made manifest, 
becomes an enlightened one,” Bengel,—against which interpretations not 
only the immediately preceding passive gavepovra is decisive, but also lin- 
guistic usage, in accordance with which ¢gavepoipar is always passive.t And 
if we adhere to the view of ¢gavepoiu. as passive, we must exclude every ex- 
planation, in which a quid pro quo is perpetrated, or something is imported, 
or yap is either neglected or incorrectly taken. We have therefore to set 
aside—(1) the explanation given by Elsner and Wolf, that Paul says : ‘‘ hom- 
inum scelera in tenebris patrata, a fidelibus, qui lux sunt, improbata, non modo 
protrahi in lucem, verum etiam homines, illis sceleribus inquinatos, rubore suf- 
Sundi inerepitos convictosque, et ipsos quoque oac fieri hac ratione, emendatis 
vitiis tenebrisque in novae vitae lucem conversis,” ‘‘ that the crimes of men 
perpetrated in darkness, condemned by believers who are light, not only are 
brought to the light, but also that men, stained with these crimes, chided 
and convicted, are covered with shame, and in this way they themselves 
become light, by the reformation of their vices, and the change of the dark- 
ness into the light of the new life ;” (2) that of Zachariae : ‘‘ Everything 
which is sharply tested according to the light of the doctrine of Christ and holds 
its ground, one has no need to keep secret; . . . all, however, which one can per- 
form openly and before every one’s eyes . . . is itself light, and strikes every 
one as good and praiseworthy ;” (3) that of Storr : ‘* Quisquis ea, quae moni- 
tus est a luce, audit, is patefit, emergit e tenebris ; guisquis autem patefuctus 
est, is luce collustratus est,” ‘‘ Whoever hearkens to those things which he 
is taught by the light is made manifest, emerges from darkness ; but who- 
ever is made manifest is illumined by the light ;” that of Koppe :° ‘‘for 
what is itself enlightened must be also a light for others ;” (5) that of Riickert, 
who would refer yap to a conclusion tacitly drawn from what precedes (‘‘ ye 
are light, consequently it is also your business éAéyyew ta éxeivwv épya’) : 
‘for all that is made manifest, that is, or by that very fact becomes, light,” from 
which again the suppressed conclusion is to be drawn : consequently it may 
be hoped that those also will become light, when they are convinced of the 





1 Beza ; so Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and 
others, as also Bleek, who in place of ave- 
povmevoy conjectures : ¢avepovy To, 

2 Erasmus Schmid; so also Cajetanus, 
Estius, Michaelis, and others. 

3 Kuinoel in Velthusen, ete., Commentatt. 
Hie pe i73 f. 

4The article before das might (this we 
remark in opposition to Olshausen) be dis- 


pensed with even in Beza’s explanation, so 
that das €or. Would have to be translated : 
is light-essence, has the nature of light. If, 
however,—which is not the case,—davepovp, 
were really to be translated as active, the 
simplest rendering, and the one most in 
keeping with the context, would be : for i¢ 
is the light making everything manifest. 
5 Comp. Cramer. 


500 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


reprobate character of their action ; (6) that of Meier and Olshausen : ‘‘ for 
all that is enlightened by the light, is itself light,” ' which according to Meier 
is equivalent to : ‘‘ becomes itself transparent and pure as light,” according 
to Olshausen : ‘‘ becomes changed into the nature of light.” (7) Nearest to 
our interpretation comes that of Harless, followed in part by Schenkel. 
Harless, however, finds expressed from ra dé ravra onward the necessity of 
the é4éyyerv, Which is rather implied in ver. 12, to which in ver. 13 the sal-. 
utariness of the éAéyyew attaches itself ; he explains ¢avepoiu., moreover, as 
if it were praeterite, and does not retain trav yap 7 gavepobu. «.7.A. in its gen- 
erality as locus communis, inasmuch as he takes ¢o¢ éorvv : is no longer a 
secret work of darkness, but is light. — According to Baur, p. 435, the prop- 
osition av 7 davep. d@¢ éate belongs to the Gnostic theory of light,? and has 
been introduced into its present connection out of this quite different sphere 
of ideas. But the state of the case is exactly the converse ; the Valentin- 
ians laid hold of this utterance of the apostle as supporting their doctrine, 
and expressly cited, it,* and consequently took it away from the connection 
in which he used it so as to favor their own theory. ; 

Ver. 14. This necessity and salutariness of the Aeyévc, which Paul has 
just set forth in vv. 12, 13 (not of the mere subsidiary thought, wav yap 
k.7.4.), he now further confirms by a word of God out of the Scripture. — 
66] wherefore,—because the é2éyyere is so highly necessary as I have shown in 
ver. 12, and of such salutary effect as is seen from ver. 13,—wherefore he 
saith: Up, thou sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon 
thee. This call of God to the viol rij¢ aveeiacg to awake out of the sleep and 
death of sin confirms the necessity of the éAeyEc, and this promise : ‘‘ Christ 
shall shine upon thee,” confirms the salutary influence of the light, under 
which they are placed by the éiéyyerv. Beza refers back 6:6 to ver. 8, which 
is erroneous for this reason, if there were no other, that the citation address- 
es the as yet unconverted. According to Piickert,* the design is to give 
support to the hope expressed in ver. 13, namely, that the sinner, earnestly 
reproved and convicted, may possibly be brought over from darkness into 
light. But see on ver. 13. With the correct interpretation of ray yap x.7.2., 
the expositions are untenable, which are given by Meier : ‘‘on that account, 
because only what is enlightened by the light of truth can be improved ;” 
and by Olshausen : ‘‘ because the action of the light upon the darkness can- 
not fail of its effect.” Harless indicates the connection only with the words 
of Plutarch :* yaipew ypy toic éhéyyouow' . . . quae yap Avrovvteg dueyeipovow, 
‘* Those reproving should rejoice ; for by grieving, ‘they arouse us.” Tnex- 
act, and—inasmuch as with Plutarch yaipem and dvrovvrec stand in em- 
phatic correlation, and Avrowvrec thus is essential 





inappropriate. — Aéyec] In- 
troduces, with the supplying of 6 Oed¢ (as iv. 8), a passage of Scripture, of 
which the Hebrew words would run: VS) DNDI- 7D nmypmM w muy 
mw 1. But what passage is that? Already Jerome says: ‘‘ Wunguam 


1 Olshausen. 3 rodTo SE O TavAos Aéyer x.7.A., ** And this 
2** All development takes place only Paul says,” etc., in Iren.i. 8. 5. 
through that which in itself already exists 4 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. 


becoming manifest for the consciousness.” 5 Tom. xiy. p. 364, ed. Hutt. 


CHAP, V., 14. 501 
hoc scriptum reperi,” ‘‘ Never have I found this writing.” Most expositors 
answer: Isa. Ix. 1. So Thomas, Cajetanus, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, 
Calovius, Surenhusius, Wolf, Wetstein, Bengel,' and others, including Har- 
less and Olshausen ; while others at the same time bring in Isa. xxvi. 19,” 
as also Isa. lii. 1° and Isa. ix. 1.4 But all, these passages are so essentially 
different from ours, that we cannot with unbiassed judgment discover the 
latter in any of them, and should have to hold our citation—if it is assumed 
to contain Old Testament words—as a mingling of Old Testament reminis- 
cences, nothing similar to which is met with, even apart from the fact that 
this citation bears in itself the living impress of unity and originality ; 
hence the less is there room to get out of the difficulty by means of Bengel’s 
expedient : ‘‘apostolus expressius loquitur ex luce N. T.,” ‘‘The Apostle 
speaks more expressly according to N. T. light.” Doubtless Harless says 
that the apostle was here concerned not about the word, but about the 
matter in general, and that he cites the word of pre-announcement with the 
modification which it has itself undergone through fulfilment, and adduces 
by way of analogy Rom. x. 6 ff. But in opposition to this may be urged, 
first generally, that such a modification of Isa. lx. 1 would have been not a 
mere modification, but would have quite done away with the identity of the 
passage ; secondly, in particular, that the passage Isa. 1x. 1, specially ac- 
cording to the LXX. (¢wrifov, guriov Inpovoadju, peer yap cov Td ac, Kal 
06&a Kkupiov éxi o& avarétaAxev), needed no change whatever in order to serve 
for the intended Scriptural confirmation, for which, moreover, various other 
passages from the O. T. would have stood at the command of the apostle, 
without needing any change ; and lastly, that Rom. x. 6 is not analogous, 
because there the identity with Deut. xxx. 12-14 is unmistakably evident 
in the words themselves, and the additions concerning Christ are not there given 





as constituent parts of the Scripture utterance, but expressly indicated as 
elucidations of the apostle (by means of rov7’ orc). Quite baseless is the view 
of de Wette, that the author is quoting, as at iv. 8 (where, indeed, the cita- 
tion is quite undoubted), an O. T. passage in an application which, by fre- 
quency of use, has become so familiar to him that he is no longer precisely 
conscious of the distinction between text and application. Others, includ- 
ing Morus, have discovered here a quotation from an apocryphal book, under 
which character Epiphanius names the prophecy of Elias, Georgius Syncel- 
lus an apocryphal authority of Jeremiah, and Codex G on the margin, the 
book (‘‘Secretum”) of Hnoch.* That, however, Paul wittingly cited an 
apocryphal book,* is to be decisively rejected, inasmuch as this is never done 


1 Who, however, at the same time follow- 
ing older expositors in Wolf (comp. Rosen- 
miiller, Morgenland, VI. p. 142) called to his 
aid a reminiscence of the ‘‘ formula in festo 
buccinarum adhiberi solita,’ ‘‘a formula 
that used to be employed at the feast of 
trumpets.’’ See, in opposition to the error 
as to the existence of such a formula, 
based upon a passage of Maimonides, Wolf, 
Curae. 


2 Beza, Calixtus, Clericus, Meier Baum- 
garten-Crusius, and others. 

3 Schenkel. 

4 Baumgarten, Olshausen. 

5 See, in general, Fabricius, Cod. Pseude- 
DUO TVs) Le PP. L074) 1105s, CA mocr sesso. 
p. 524. 

6 According to Jerome, he is held not to 
have done it, ‘‘quod apoerypha compro- 
baret, sed quod et Arati et Epimenidis et 


502 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

by him, but, on the contrary, the formula of citation always means canoni- 
cal passages. Hence, also, we have not, with Heumann,' Michaelis, Storr, 
Stolz, Flatt, to guess at an early hymn of the Church as the source.” Others 
have found therein a saying of Christ, like Ocder,* in opposition to which 
may be urged, not indeed the following 6 Xpioréc, which Jesus might doubt- 
less have said of Himself, but rather the fact that the subject Xpuorée to 
2éyer could not be at all divined, as indeed Paul has never adduced sayings 
of Christ in his Epistles. This also in opposition to the opinion mentioned 
in Jerome,‘ that Paul here, after the manner of the prophets (comp. the 
prophetic : thus saith the Lord), ‘‘ xpoowxoroiay Spiritus sancti figuraverit,” 
‘uttered a prosopopoeia of the Holy Ghost.” Grotius* regards even 7d ¢&¢ as 
subject : ‘‘ Lua illa, i.e., homo luce perfusus, dicit alter,” ‘the light, 7.e., a 
man pervaded with light, says to another.” Asif previously the gé¢ were 
homo luce perfusus! ‘‘a man pervaded with light,” and as if every reader 
could not but have recognized a citation as well in 0d Aéyec as in the char- 
acter of the saying itself! Erroneously Bornemann also * holds that Aéyec 
is to be taken impersonaliter, ‘‘impersonally ;” in this respect it is said, one 
may say, so that no passage of Scripture is cited, but perhaps allusion is 
made to Mark y. 41. This impersonal use is found only with @yoi. See the 
instances cited by Bornemann, and Bernhardy, -p. 419. In view of all these 
opinions, my conclusion, as at 1 Cor. ii. 9, is to this effect : From 6:0 Aéyee 
it is evident that Paul desired to adduce a passage of canonical Scripture, 
but—as the passage is not canonical—in virtue of a lapsws memoriae he ad- 
duces an apocryphal saying, which, citing from memory, he held as canoni- 
eal. From what Apocryphal writing the passage is drawn, we do not 
know. [See Note LIL, p. 525.]— éyespe] up! Comp. dye, érevye. See, in op- 
position to the form of the Recepta éyepa," Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 55 f. — 
6 xafetduv] and then éx vexp&v form a climactic twofold description of the 
state of man under the dominion of sin, in which state the true spiritual 
life, the moral vital activity, is suppressed and gone, as is the physical life 
in the sleeping (comp. Rom. xiii. 11) and in the dead respectively. Comp. 
Isa. ix. 10. How often with the classical writers, too, the expression dead 
is employed for the expression of moral insensibility, see on Matt. viii. 22 ; 
Luke xv. 14; Musgrave, ad Oed. R. 45 ; Bornemann, in Luc. p. 97.°— dv- 





Menandri versibus sit abusus ad ea, quae 
voluerat, in tempore comprobanda,” 
“because he approved the Apocrypha, but 
because he adapted the verses of Aratus, 
Epimenides, and Menander to those things 
that he wished at the time to be approved.” 

1 Poicile, II. p. 390. 

2This opinion is already mentioned by 
Theodoret: tuvés -6€ Tov EpunvevtwY epacav 
TVEVLATLKHS XapLTos agiwwOevTas Tivas Wadpmovs 
ovyypavar, ““some of the interpreters said 
that those endowed with spiritual grace 
composed certain psalms,” in connection 
with which they had appealed to 1 Cor. xiy. 
26. Bleek, too, ad /oc., and already in the 


Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 331, finds it probable 
that the saying is taken from a writing 
composed by a Christian poet of that early 
age. 

3 Syntagm. Obss. sacr. p. 697 ff. 

4 Comp. also Bugenhagen and Calixtus, 

> Comp. Koppe. 

6 Schol.in Luc. p. xlviii. f. 

7 So also Lachmann. 

8 Ono cadevdwy, comp. Sohar. Levit. f. 
383, c. 180: ** Quotiescunque lex occurrit, toties 
omnia hominum genera excitat, verum omnes 
somno sepulti jacent in peccatis, nihil intelli- 
gunt neque attendunt,”’ “ As often as the law 
occurs, it excites all classes of men, but 


CHAPH Vie, clo, 16: 503 


éo7a] On the form, see Winer, p. 73 ; Matthiae, p. 484. — érid¢atboer] from 
éxidaboxw, see Winer, p. 82; Job xxv. 5, xxxi. 26. The readings érupaioer 
co. 6 Xp. and ixupatioere tov Xp. are ancient,' and are not to be explained 
merely from an accidental interchange in copying, but are connected with 
the preposterous fiction that the words were addressed to Adam buried 
under the cross of Christ, whom Christ would touch with His body and 
blood, thereby causing him to become alive and to rise. See Jerome. The 
words themselves : Christ shall shine upon thee, signify not: He will be 
gracious to thee,? but : He will by the gracious operation of His Spirit 
annul in thee the ethical darkness,* and impart to thee the divine a2/Aea, 
of which He is the possessor and bearer (Christ, the light of the world). 
Observe, moreover, that the arising is not an act of cne’s own, indepen- 
dent of God and anticipating His gracious operation, but that it takes place 
only through God’s effectual awakening call. On this effectual calling then 
ensues the Christian enlightening. 

Ver. 15. Oiv] is, after the digression begun with pwaAdov dé Kai édéyyere of 
ver. 11, resumptive, as at iv. 17. Look then to it—now to return to my ex- 
hortations with regard to the Christian walk, vv. 8-10—how ye, ete. Cal- 
vin, whom Harless follows, states the connection thus: ‘‘ Si aliorum dis- 
cutere tenebras fideles debent fulgure suo,quanto minus caecutire debent in 
proprio vitae instituto,” ‘‘If believers ought by their brightness to dis- 
perse the darkness of others, how much less should they be blind in their 
own course of life.” This would be correct, if Paul had written Biérere ov 
aitoi, Or BAéreTe odv, THC avToi. — BAérere] is the simple : look to, take heed to 
(1 Cor: xvi. 10); Phil. iii. 2; Col. iv. 17), not: ‘ utimini luce vestra ad 
videndum,” ‘‘ use your light for seeing,” Estius,4 which is forbidden by rac. — 
mac aKkpiBac Tepiareite| 7H ¢ not equivalent to iva,° and repirareire not for the 
subjunctive,® but : look to it, in what manner ye carry out the observance of an exact 
walk in strict accord with duty.? Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche, in Mritzschior. 
Opusc. p. 208f.; Winer, p. 269. —p7 dc doogo, x.7.A.] Epexegesis of the axpr- 
fac just mentioned, negative and positive : presenting yourselves in your walk 
not as unwise, but aswise. We have thus tosupply neither repuratowvrec * nor 
anything else ; but, like axpifac, its more precise definition py d¢ dcogor K.T.A. 
is dependent on reperareite. With regard to m7, referring to BAgmere, see 
Winer, p. 421; and for the emphatic parallelismus antitheticus, ‘‘ anti- 
thetical parallelism,” comp. Niigelsbach,® Bremi,’’ Winer, p. 537 f. 

Ver. 16. Accompanying modal definition to the preceding dc cddor : ementes 
vobis, ‘‘ buying for yourselves” (middle) opportunitatum, ‘‘the opportunity,” 
i.e., in that you make your own the right point of time for such walk, do not let 
it pass by unused. In this figurative conception the doing of that for which 


they all lie in sins, buried in sleep, and 5 Koppe. 

neither understand, nor attend to aught.” 6 Grotius. 
1 See Chrysostom and Jerome ad loc. 7 Comp. axptBodicatos, Arist. Hth. Nic. v. 
2So, at variance with the context, Bret- 10. 8. 

schneider. 5 Harless. 
3 Avwv THY VUKTa TIS auaptias, ** dispersing 8 Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 80 f. 

the night of sin,’ Gregory of Nazianzus. 10 4a Dem. de Chers. p. 108, 73. 


4 Comp. Erasmus. 


504 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
the point of time is fitted, is thought of as the purchase-price, by which the 
xarpoc becomes ours.’ Others have thought of the sacrifice of all earthly things 
and of all lusts asthe purchase-price ;? but this is imported, since the context 
yields nothing else than the fulfilment of duty meant by the axpiBag zepura- 
relv ; hence we have not, with Harless, to interpret it of the right moment 
‘‘for letting the light of correction break in upon the darkness of sin,” ® 
which would be to revert, at variance with the context, to the topic of the 
éAeyéic already ended. Luther‘ incorrectly renders : ‘‘ Suit yourselves to the 
time.” That would be dovdevery tg KarpO, Rom. xii. 11. Similarly also 
Grotius :° ‘‘quovis labore ac verborum honestis obsequtis vitate pericula et 
diem de die ducite,” ‘‘In any labor, and honorable obedience of wérds, 
avoid dangers and pass the time.” Comp. Bengel, who compares Amos v. 
13, and understands the prudent letting the evil day pass over ‘‘ quiescendo 
vel certe modice © endo,” ‘‘by resting, or certainiy by working moder- 
ately,”” where better time is purchased, in order to make the more use 
thereof. b _osition to Grotius and Bengel, it may be urged that this 
alleged mode of the éZayopafevw tov karpév is not mentioned by Paul, but im- 
ported by the expositor, and that the counsel of such a trimming behavior 
is hardly compatible with the moral decision of the apostle, and with his ex- 
pectation of the approaching end of the aidy oiroc. We may add that the 
compound i€ayop. is not here to be understood as redeem (Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5), 
as ¢.g., Bengel would take it (from the power of evil men), and Calvin (from 
the devil), seeing that the context does not suggest such reference ; but the 
éx in the composition is intensive, and denotes what is entire, utter, as also 
in Plut. Crass. 2 ; Polyb. iii. 42. 2; Dan. ii. 8. [See Note LIIL., p. 525. ] — 
bre ai yépar TovApai eioc| Supplies a motive for the éfay. r. xarp., for the days, 
the present times, are evil, for moral corruption is now in vogue. Somuch the 
more must it intimately concern you as Christians (for how exalted is their 
task above the wickedness of the present time! Phil. ii. 15, ili. 20) rov 
Karpov éEayopalecba:.  Beza, Flacius, Grotius, Hammond, Rosenmiiller, and 
others refer zovypai to the misfortune of the time (Gen. xlvil. 9 ; Ps. xlix. 6 
[5]) ; but the conteat opposes the moral bearing of the Christian to the im- 
moral condition of thetime. According to de Wette’s here very unfounded 
scepticism, the writer is indistinct and hesitating, because he is bringing 
Col. iv. 5 into another connection. 

Ver. 17. Ava tovro0] Because ye ought so to walk as is said in vv. 15, 16, of 
which ye as agpovee (whose walk, in fact, cannot be wise) would be inca- 
pable. Others : because the times are evil.® But the dre ai ju. mov. eloc was 


“Comp: Col. iv. 53 LXX. Dan. ii. 8; 2 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius ; 


Atonin. vi. 26: kepSavréov 7d mapov, “the 
present must be bought,” Plut. Philop. 15: 
katpov apmacgev, “ to seize an opportunity.” 
The opposite is katpoyv mapieva, ‘* the oppor- 
tunity passes by,” Thucyd. iv. 27. Gal. vi. 
10 is parallel as to substance. Classical 
writers say katp. mpiacOar, “to purchase an 
opportunity,’ Dem. 120. 26, 187. 22, but in 
the proper sense of buying for money. 


comp. also Augustine, Flacius, Zanchius, 
Estius, Riickert, and others. 

3 Comp. Michaelis and Rosenmiiller. 

4 Who in earlier editions had rightly: re- 
lease the time. 

> Comp. Hammond. 

* Menochius, Zanchius, Estius, eé al., in- 
cluding Riickert, Matthies, and de Wette. 


CHAPS Vs, 18,) 10. 505 
only a subsidiary thought subservient to the ayopat. t. kap., and affords no 
suitable reason for the following exhortations. — p17 yiveofe| not : be not, but 
become not. — adpovec| devoid of intelligence, imprudentes, t.e., ‘ qui mente non 
recte utuntur,” ‘‘those who do not use the mind aright,”’ namely, for the 
moral understanding of the will of Christ, as here the contrast teaches. 
Comp. on ¢pédvycc, i. 8. The doogov of ver. 15 is a higher notion than 
a@povec, which latter denotes the want of practical understanding, the oppo- 
site of gpdviuoc.2 Every a¢par is also dcogoc, but the dcogoc may yet be ¢pd- 
vywog (Luke xvi. 8), namely, for immoral ends and means, which here the 
context excludes. See also the following contrast. — cvviovrec] understand- 
4 nore than yivécxovtec. Comp. Grotius, and see on Col. i, 9, —7rd 6éA. 
tou kup.| of Christ. Comp. Acts xxi. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 19. 

Ver. 18. Kai] and in particular, to mention a single vice, which would 
belong to agpoctyn. — ui webdoK. civ] become not drunken through wine, which 
stands opposed to the allowable use of wine, without our having on that 
account to seek here a reference to Montanism.* To cor clr le, however, 
from ver. 19 that excess at the Agapae is meant (1 Cor. xi. 21), as Koppe 
and Holzhausen maintain,‘ is quite arbitrary ; inasmuch as neither in the 
preceding nor following context is there any mention made of the Agapae, 
and this special abuse, the traces of which in the N. T. are, moreover, only 
to be found in Corinth, would have called fora special censure. —év 6 éorw 
dowria] deterring remark. év © does not apply to oivm alone, as Schoettgen 
holds,® but to the peficKecba: oivw : wherein is contained debauchery, dissolute 
behavior. A vivid description of the grosser and more refined dowria may 
be seen in Cicero. On the word itself (in its literal sense wnsavableness), 
see Tittmann, Synon. p. 152 ; Lobeck, Paralip. I. p. 559. A more precise 
limitation of the sense’ is without warrant in the text. — d/id rAnpovcbe év 
mvevpari| but become full by the Spirit. The imperative passive finds its ex- 
planation in the possibility of resistance to the Holy Spirit and of the 
opposite fleshly endeavor ; and é» is instrumental, as at i. 23 ; Phil. iv. 19. 
The contrast lies not in olvoc and rvevua,* because otherwise the text must 
have run p7 olive pedion., GAN év rvebuate rAnp., but in the two states—that of 
intoxication and that of inspiration. This opposition is only in appearance 
strange,’ and has its sufficient ground in the excitement of the person in- 
spired and its utterances (comp. Acts li. 13). [See Note LIV., p. 525.] 

Ver. 19. Accompanying definition to the just required ‘‘ being filled by 
the Spirit,” as that with which this Aateiv éavroic warwoic x.7.A. isto be simul- 
taneously combined as its immediate expression: so that ye speak to one 
another through psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. What a contrast with 


1 Tittmann, Synon. p. 143. 

2 Plat. Gorg. p. 498 B; Xen. Mem. ii. 3,1; 
comp. Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 36; Luke xi. 
40, xii. 20. 

3 Schwegler. 

4 Comp. also de Wette. 

* Whose Rabbinical passages therefore, 
as Baminidb. rabba, f. 206, 3. “* ubicunque est 
vinum, ibi est immunditia,” ‘‘ wherever 


there is wine, there is uncleanness,”’ are 
not to the point here. 

6 De Fin. ii. 8. 

7 Jerome understands lascivious excess, as 
also Hammond, who thinks of the Bac- 
chanalia. 

8 Grotius, Harless, Olshausen, and others. 

® In opposition to de Wette. 


506 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

the preceding év @) éo7w aooria |! Comp. Col. ili. 16. — AadAoivrec éavroig] not 
meditantes vobiscum, ‘‘ meditating with you,” ! but it denotes the reciprocal 
speaking (éavroic, inthe sense of a2AjAoce, as iv. 82, toeach other), the oral inter- 
change of thoughts and feelings, which—just because the condition is, that 
of being filled by the Spirit—does not make use of the conversational lan- 
guage of ordinary life, or even of drunken passion, but of psalms, etc., as 
the means of mutual communication (dativus instrumentalis, ‘* instru- 
mental dative ;” Luther incorrectly renders : about psalms®). That, how- 
ever, the apostle is here speaking of actual worship in the narrower sense, * 
is assumed in opposition to the context, since the contrast y7 webion. civ, 
GaAa rAyp. év xv. does not characterize the AaAeiv éavroic as taking place in 
worship, although in itself it is not denied that in worship too the inspired 
antiphonal singing took place. The distinction between padpoe¢ and 
juvoc consists in this, that by yaa. Paul denotes a religious song in 
general bearing the character of the O. T. psalins, but by inv. specially a song 
of praise,° and that, in accordance with the context, addressed to Christ 
(ver. 19) and God (ver. 20). Properly waaucéc (which originally means the 
making the cithara sound) is a song in general, and that indeed as sung to 
astringed instrument; ° but in the N. T. the character of the psalm is deter- 
mined by the psalms of the O. T., so called xav’ é&oyqv, ‘‘ pre-eminently” 
(1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26 ; Jas. v. 13). According to Harless, the two words are 
not different as regards their contents, but waApoi¢ is the expression of the 
spiritual song for the Jewish-Christians, bvoc¢ for the Gentile- Christians. 
An external distinction in itself improbable, and very arbitrary, since the 
special signification of iuvoc, song of praise, is thoroughly established, and 
warudc also was a word very current in Greek, which—as well in itself as 
more especially with regard to its sense established in Christian usage in 
accordance with the conception of the O. T. psalms—could not but be 
equally intelligible for the Gentile-Christians as for the Jewish-Christians. ’ 
According to Olshausen, wapoi are here the psalms of the O. T., which had 
passed over from the synagogue into the use of the church. But worship 
is not spoken of here ; and that the Christians, filled by the Spirit, impro- 
vised psalms, is clear from 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26. Such Christian psalms and 
hymns are meant, as the Spirit gave them to be uttered (Acts il. 4, x. 46, 
xix. 6),—phenomena doubtless, which, like the operations of the Spirit 
generally in the first age of the church, are withdrawn from our special 
cognizance. —xai @daic rvevu.| Inasmuch as 064 may be any song, even 
secular, rvevyatuxatc is here added, so that by @daic tvevu. is denoted the whole 


1 Morus, Michaelis. hymns is of course not even remotely to be 


* Pliny, Hp. x. 97: Carmen Christo quasi 
Deo dicunt secum invicem,’ “they sing 
with one another a hymn to Christ as 
God” (€avrois). 

3 Olshausen. 

4 See 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26; Niceph. Call. xiii. 
8: THY TeV avTipwvov cuvyPerav avwOev amoc- 
TOAWY 7 ExKAnoia mapédAaBe, ‘‘The church re- 
ceived the use of antiphons from the times 
of the apostles.” <A collection of church- 


thought of in our passage ; and it is to go 
in quest of a reason for suspecting our 
Epistle, when, with Schwegler, the mention 
of WaAmoi «.7.A. is designated as surprising. 

5 Plat. Legg. iii. p. 700 B, opposed to @p7- 
vos. 

6 See Spanheim, ad Callim. p. 55. 

7 See also Rudelb. in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. 
Theol. 1853, 4, p. 634 f. 


CHAP. V., 20. 507 
genus, of which the watyoi and tuvos were species. mrvevuarixaic defines 
the songs as proceeding from the Holy Spirit, as Oeorveborovc.’ It is to be 
observed, moreover, that Paul does not require a constant Aadciv éavroig parpoig 
k.7.4. on the part of his readers, but, in contradistinction to the heathen dcwria 
in drunkenness, as that which is to take place among the Christians instead 
of drunken revelry with its dissolute doings. — The ewmulation warp. x. bur. 
x. 9d. rv. belongs to the animated and urgent style of discourse.* — q@Jovre¢ 
kal paddovrec év TH Kapd. bu. TO Kvpiw] co-ordinate with the preceding Aadovvtec 
k.T.A., containing another singing of praise, namely, that which goes on in 
the silence of the heart. The point of difference lies in éy raic¢ xapd. iu., as 
contradistinguished from the preceding éavroic. Usually this second par- 
ticipial clause is regarded as subordinate to the previous one ; it is held to 
affirm that that reciprocal singing of praise must take place not merely with 
the mouth, but also in the heart.* But how could it have occurred to Paul 
here to enter such a protest against mere lip-praise, when he, in fact, repre- 
sents the psalm-singing, etc., as the utterance of the being filled by the 
Spirit, and makes express mention of rvevuartixaic daic, in which case, 
at any rate, the thought of a mere singing with the mouth was of itself ex- 
cluded. The right view is found substantially in Riickert (who, neverthe- 
less, already here imports an ‘‘ always’), Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Schenkel. — 76 xvpiw] to Christ, ver. 20. 

Ver. 20. A third modal definition to the rAnpotote év rvebuarti, likewise co- 
ordinate with the two preceding ones, bringing into prominence—after the 
general singing of praise, etc., of ver. 19, which is to take place as well audi- 
bly as in the heart—further, and in particular, the thanksgiving, which the 
readers have always for all things to render to God. — ravrore|] This always 
is not to be pressed ; see on 1 Cor. i. 4 ; in accordance with Col. iii. 17, a¢ 
all action in word and work. 





Observe, however, that ravrore is only intro- 
duced at this point ; for not the dev and wWaArew, but certainly, amidst the 
constant consciousness of the divine manifestations of grace, thanksgiving 
also, like prayer in general, may and ought to belong to the constant activ- 
ity of the Christian life. Comp. vi. 18 ; Rom. xii. 12 ; Col. iv. 2; 1 Thess. 
v. 17. For the emphatic juxtaposition rdavrore irép ravtwy, comp. 2 Cor. ix. 
8, and see Lobeck, Paralip. I. p. 56. This ravrwv is not masculine,* but neu- 
ter, and relates, in accordance with the context, to all Christian blessings. 
To understand it of all that happens to us, even including sufferings, as is 
done by Chrysostom,*® Jerome, Erasmus, and many, including Meier, Ols- 
hausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and de Wette, is foreign to the connection, 
yet doubtless the Christian repaxayore and joy in suffering belong thereto. 
— éy ovéu. Tov Kvpiov x.7.2.] not ad honorem Christi, ‘‘for the honor of 


1 Pind. Ol. iii. 18: devpopor viocovt’ én’ av- 
Ypwrovs aovdar, ‘‘songs allotted by the gods 
go to men.”’ 

2 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxviii. 
f. Comp. also Lobeck, Parailip. 1. p. 60 f. 


make melody in his heart who moves his 
tongue, but he who excites his mind to the 
understanding of the things said,’’ Theo- 
doret. 

4 Theodoret. 


37H Kapdia WadAer 0 KH OvoY THY yA@TTaY 
Kiv@v, aAAG Kal TOY VoUY Els THY TOY AEyomevwV 
katavono. dveyetpwv, ‘““ Not only does he 


5 Chrysostom, in fact, includes even hel/ 
therein, the contemplation of which is for 
us a check of fear and thus very salutary. 


508 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
Christ,” } but : so that what is embraced in the name Jesus Christ? is the 
clement, in which your grateful consciousness moves in the act of thanks- 
giving. Comp. Col. iii. 17 ; John xiv. 13. As regards subject matter, év 
Xpior@ (iii. 21) would be different, and dca Xpeorod (Rom. vii. 25) similar. — 
7 Oe kal ratpi] See on i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 3 ; 1 Cor. xv. 24. The referring of 
xarpi to Christ, the Son,* is more in keeping with the connection (év dyéuare 
x.7.A.) than the rendering : our Father.* é 
Ver. 21 f.5 The words iroracc. aAAjn. év 68 Xp. still belong to ver. 20,° 
parallel to the et yapiorovvreg x.7.2., adding to this relation towards God the 
mutual relation towards one another. Then begins with ai yuvaixes a new 
section, into the first precept of which we have to take over the verb from 
the iroraccouevor just used, namely, irotdcoecde™ or broraccéoSwcay (Lach-— 
mann). Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, and others,® in- 
correctly hold that the participle is to be taken imperatively ; in that case an 
éavé to be supplied in thought must, as in Rom. xii. 9, have been suggested 
by the context. Olshausen quite arbitrarily proposes that we supply men- 
tally : ‘‘are all believers.” If the new section was to begin with érorace., 
then droracc. add. év ¢. Xp. would have to be regarded as an absolutely pre- 
fixed general attribute, to which the special one afterwards to be adduced 
would be subordinate (‘‘inasmuch as ye subject yourselves in the fear of 
Christ, the wives ought,” etc.). It would not militate against this view, 
that in the sequel only the tréraévc of the wives follows, while the iaxoy of 
the children and servants, in chap. vi., can no longer be brought into con- 
nection with our iroracoéuevor. For often with the classical writers also, 
after the prefixing of such absolute nominatives, which have reference to 
the whole collectively, the discourse passes only over to one part (not to 
several).° But against it may be urged the consideration that ai yvvaixeg has 
no special verb ; such a verb, and one correlative as to notion with izoracc., 
could not but be associated with it.—On the thought irordccecdar 
ahAgAotc, comp. 1 Pet. v. 5 ; Clem. Cor. i. 38. — iv ¢68w Xpiorovd] is the 
fundamental disposition, in which the izoraccecdar a7AH201¢ is to take place. 
And Christ is to be feared as the judge. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 11 ; 1 Cor. x. 22. 
— roi¢ Wiow avdpacw| to their own husbands. Without being misunderstood, 
Paul might have written merely rtoi¢ avdpdciv, but idiowe serves to make the 
obligation of the trordcceodar roig avdpacw palpable in its natural necessity ; 
for what a wife is she, who refuses obedience to her own husband 2” Through- 


1 Flatt. 
2 Per quem omnia nobis obtingunt,” “ by 
whom all things become ours,” Bengel. 

% Erasmus, Estius, Harless, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and others. 

*Zanchius, Rickert [Bleek], Matthies, 
[Braune], and others. 

5 Amore sublime, more ideal regulation 
of the married state is not conceivable than 
that which is here set forth by the apostle, 
vy. 21-33, and yet it is one which has flowed 
from the living depth of the Christian con- 
sciousness, and hence is practically appli- 


cable to all concrete relations. 
®So Lachmann, ‘Tischendorf, 
[West. and Hort]. 

7 Hizevir. 

8 Comp. also Reiche, Comm. erit. p. 183. 

® See particularly Niigelsbach, 2. Zdias, ed. 
3, p. 885 f. 

10 So also Stobaeus, S. 22: Geava.. 
Seloa, TL TpOTOV Ely yuVaLKi, TO TH Ldlw, Ey, 
apeckey avdpi, ‘* Theano, being asked what 
was the first thing to a wife, ‘To please,’ 
said he, ‘her own husband.’ ”’ 


Bleek 


. €pwrn- 


CHAP. V., 23, 24. 509 
out the N. T. idvoc never stands in place of the mere possessive pronoun, but 
has always, as also with the Greeks, an emphasis to be derived from the con- 
nection, even at Matt. xxii. 5, xxv. 14 (see in loc.) ; 1 Pet. iii. 1 ; and Tit. il. 
5 (where the relation is as in our passage). This in opposition to Winer, 
p. 139, and at the same time in opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who! see 
in 6 idvoc av#p Nothing more than a designation which has become usual for the 
husband. From the very context, in itself 6 avjp is husband.? That which, 
on the other hand, Bengel finds in idiog : ‘‘ etiamsi alibi meliora viderentur 
habere consilia,” ‘‘ even though elsewhere they should seem to have better 
judgment,” is imported. — 6¢ 76 kvpiw] By this is not meant the husbands;* 
which must have been roic¢ xupiowc, but Christ, and &¢ expresses the mode of 
view in which the wives are to regard their obedience towards the hus- 
bands, namely, as rendered to the Lord; comp. vi. 6, 7. For the husband 
(see what follows) stands in relation to the wife not otherwise than as Christ 
to the church ; in the conjugal relation the husband is the one who repre- 
sents Christ to the wife, in so far as he is head of the wife, as Christ is the 
Head of the church. To find in cc the mere relation of resemblance* is erro- 
neous on account of what follows ; the passage must have run in the form 
O¢ 7 éxkAnoia TO kvpiw, Which Erasmus has imported into his paraphrase : 
“non aliter, quam ecclesia, subdita est Domino Jesu,” ‘‘ not otherwise than 
as the church is the subject to the Lord Jesus.” We may add that the view 
of Michaelis—that here and Col. iii. 18 the teachings as to marriage are di- 
rected against errors of the Essenes (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 3)—is the more to be 
regarded as a fiction, inasmuch as Paul is speaking not of the propriety of 
marriage, but of the duties of the married life. 

Vv. 23, 24. "Ore avyp . éxxAyjoiac] Reason assigned for the é¢ 7@ Kvpiv 
just demanded. For the husband is in the marriage relation the same as 
Christ is in relation to the church ; the former, like the latter, is the 
head. —avijp| a husband is head of his wife; hence avip is without, and 
yuvatxéc with the article. — dc xai| as also with Christ the relation of being 
Head exists, namefy, in regard to the church. — atic 6 cwryp Tov cémaroc] is 
usually taken as apposition to 6 Xproroc,® according to which aizé¢ would 
take up the subject again with special emphasis :° ‘‘ He, the Saviour of the 
body,” He who makes His body, 7.e., the church, of which He is the Head, 
partaker of the Messianic cwrypia.’ But while there is not here apparent 
from the connection any purpose, bearing on the matter in hand, for such 
an emphatic description,* there may be urged against it the following aia, 


1 Comp. also Dorville, ad Charit. p. 452. 

2 Hom. Od. xix. 294; Matt. i. 16. 

3 Thomas Aquinas, Semler. 

4“ Uxoris erga maritum officia stmilia 
quodammodo sunt officits Christianorum erga 
Christum,” ‘“ The duties of a wife towards 
her husband are ina measure like the du- 
ties of Christians towards Christ,” Koppe. 

5 Holzhausen (comp. already Chrysostom) 
has again referred airos to the husband, 
who is called cwrip 70d cHpaT0s in compar- 
ison with Christ, inasmuch as the being of 
the wife is conditioned by the husband. In- 


correctly, since no reader could refer avrés 
to any other subject than to the one imme- 
diately preceding, 0 Xproros, and since it 
was intelligible to describe the church 
doubtless, but not the wife, as 70 capa 
(without further addition). Nor is cwr7p 
ever employed in the N. T. otherwise than 
of Christ or God. 

6 Schaefer, Melet. p. 84; Bernhardy, p. 283. 

7‘*Merito et efficaica,”’ ‘“‘ by merit and 
effleacy,’’ Calovius. 

8 For the view, that hereby a reminder is 
given to husbands of the fact, which is 


510 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

which, if it is not placed in combination with avric 6 cwr. Tr. cou., admits of 
no logical explanation. Uswally, it is true, this a2Aa is taken syllogistically.* 
But the syllogistic 4444, and that in the Greek writers combined with pq, 
is employed for the introduction of the propositio minor, ‘‘minor proposi- 
tion ;’? whereas here we should have the conclusio, ‘‘ conclusion,” and we 
should thus have to take a2Ad, in accordance with its discontinuative 
force,* for éo7e, against which, however, militates the fact that the sen- 
tence assigning a reason, 67¢ dvjp «.7.A., has already fulfilled its destined 
object (ver. 22), so that it could not occur to any reader to seek in the ad- 
versative d4Aa an inference from this confirmatory clause. If Paul had 
wished again to infer, from ver. 23, that which is proved by this verse, he 
would have written oiv or the metabatic dé. Besides this, however, ver. 24, 
as an inference from ver. 23, would contain a very superfluous prolixity of 
the discourse, inasmuch as the contents of ver. 24 was already so fully given 
by the thought of ver. 23 attached to what precedes by means of 67, that 
we could not but see here a real logical pleonasm, such as we are not accus- 
tomed to mect with in the writings of the concise and sententious Paul. 
According to Winer, p. 400, ver. 24 is meant to continue and conclude the 
argument, so that ver. 23 proves the é¢ 76 kvpig from the position of Christ 
and the husband, while ver. 24 proves it from the demand implied in this 
position, and hence a//a amounts ultimately to the sense : ‘‘ but then, which 
is the main thing.” But even in this way only a continuing dé, autem, and 
not the adversative 4224, at, would be quite in accordance with the thought. 
When, moreover, it is assumed, with Riickert, Harless, Bleek, that a/2a, 
after the intermediate thought airoc 6 owr. 7. o., is used as breaking off and 
leading back to the theme,‘ it is self-evident that the brief clause abro¢ 6 
cor. tT. o.—introduced, moreover, only as apposition—has not at all inter- 
rupted the development, and consequently has not given occasion for such 


a leading back to the theme. ® 


often forgotten by them, that they (see ver. 
29) ought to make their wives truly happy 
(Erasm., Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, 
including Riickert, Meier, Matthies, Baum- 
garten-Crusius ; comp. also Hofmann, 
Schriftbew. I. 2, p. 134 f.), is inadmissible, 
since the instructions for husbands begin 
only with ver. 25. Harless remarks: ‘ In- 
asmuch as the apostle finds the obedience 
of marriage, realized in it by the wife, also 
in the relation of the church to Christ, he 
shows immediately the ground of this 
peculiar relation in the manifestation of the 
gracious power of the Lord by redemp- 
tion.’ Butin this way the question as to the 
reason determining this addition is not an- 
swered, and the gracious power of the Lord 
is, in fact, not denoted by the simple cw77p. 
Olshausen (so already Piseator) thought 
that avros 0 owrnp tod cou. had merely 
the design of setting forth Christ more 
distinctly in the character of xe#ady%, inas- 


Hofmann finally takes a/Aa as repelling a 


much as it designates the church as the 
copa which He rules. But it is not tod 
cpatos that has the emphasis ; and kedady 
Tis éxkA., spoken of Christ, needed no eluci- 
dation, least of all in ¢his Epistle. 

1 So Beza, Grotius, and others, including 
Matthies, Olshausen, de Wette [Ewald, 
Braune]. 

2 Apollon. Alex. in Beck, Anecd. II. p. 
518, 839; Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 3884; 
Fritzsche, a@ Rom. v. 14; Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 638. 

3 “ Argumentorum enarrationem aut 
aliam cogitationem abrumpit et ad rem 
ipsam, quae sit agenda, vocat,” “‘ It breaks 
off the reckoning of arguments or other 
thought, and calls to the subject itself 
which is to be done,”’ Klotz, Z.c. p. 5; comp. 
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812; Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. 1. p. 78. 

4 See Hartung, /.c. II. p. 37. 

5 And how would Paul have returned to 


CHAP. V., 295. 511 
possible objection, and to this effect : ‘‘ But even where the husband is not 
this (namely, one who makes happy, as like Christ he ought to be) to his 
wife, that subordination nevertheless remains,” etc. But in this way the very 
thought, upon which everything is held to turn, is purely read into the 
passage. In view of all that has been said, I (and Schenkel agrees with me 
in this) cannot take abroc 6 cur. rT. o. as apposition, but only as an indepen- 
dent proposition, and I understand add in its ordinary adversative sense, 
namely, thus: ‘‘ He for His person, He and no other, és the Saviour of the 
body ; but this relation, which belongs exclusively to Himself, does not take 
away the obligation of obedience on the part of the wives towards their 
husbands, nay, rather, as the church obeys Christ, so must also the wives obey 
their husbands in every respect.” The right view was already perceived by 
Calvin, when on account of the adversative a424 he proposed the expla- 
nation :’ ‘‘ Habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est servator ecclesiae, 
nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos praeesse, Christiexemplo, utcunque 
pari gratianon polleant,” ‘‘It is true that Christ has this peculiarity, that He 
is the Saviour of the Church ; nevertheless, let the women know that their 
husbands are over them, according to the example of Christ, however un- 
equal may be the favor they exercise.” Comp. also Bengel, who aptly re- 
marks: ‘‘ Vir autem non est servator uxoris ; in eo Christus excellit ; hinc 
sed sequitur,”’ ‘‘The husband, however, is not the Saviour of the wife ; in 
this Christ excels ; hence but follows.” . .. What Hofmann objects is 
quite irrelevant ; for the thought, that Christ is Saviour of the body, is not 
superfluous, but has its significant bearing in the contrast which follows ; 
and Paul had not to write 746» instead of rot céuatoc with a view to 
clearness, since Christ was, in fact, just designated as xegaay ; consequently 
nothing was now more natural and clear than the designation of believers 
The objection of Reiche, that 
airéc comes in asyndeticully, can have no weight in the case of Paul espe- 
cially, and of his brief and terse moral precepts (see immediately ver. 28, 
and comp. in particular Rom. xii, 9 ff.). —ai yuvaixec] se. iroraccécSucav. 
See ver. 22. — év ravri | in which case it is presupposed that the command- 
ing on the part of the husbands is in keeping with their position as representing 
Christ towards the wife. ‘Q¢ ceioeBéae vouoderov rpooréderke TO év Tavti, 
‘* As making rules for the godly, he added the év ravri,” Theodoret. 

Ver. 25. If the duty of the wives was izordocec@as Toic avdpaow o¢ 
T@ kupig, that of the husband is: dyarare 
Xptoro¢ k.t.A., a love, therefore, which is ready to undergo even death 
out of affection for the wife. ‘Si omnia rhetorum argumenta in unum 
conjicias, non tam persuaseris conjugibus dilectionem mutuam, quam hic 
Paulus,” ‘“‘Tf you cast all the arguments of orators together, you will not 


by row cdéparoc, the correlative of Kegary. 


e 


Tac yuvaikac, KaAHc Kat O 


his theme! He wouldhayve said again, in 
another form, in ver. 24, that which he had 
just said in ver. 23! After so short a clause 
aS a’tds 6 owt. t.¢., What an un-Pauline 
diffuseness ! 

1 He did not, however, himself give it the 
preference, but erroneously took adda as 


ceterum, and in avrds 0 owt. +. o. found the 
thought: ‘“‘ita nihil esse mulieri utilius nec 
magis salubre, quam ut marito subsit,”’ 
‘* Nothing is more useful, nor more adyvan- 
tageous to a woman than to be subject to 
a husband.” 


512 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


persuade husband and wife so effectually to mutual love as Paul does here,” 
Bugenhagen, — xa? éavtdv mapéd. x.t.A.] A practical proof of the 7yaryoe. 
Comp. ver. 2. What giving up is meant (namely, that unto death) is obvious 
of itself here, where no definition is added to rapéd. ; Gal. ii. 20; Rom. iv. 25. 
Ver. 26. Aim, which Christ had in view in giving up Himself for the 
church, and therewith continued statement of the pattern of love given by Him. 
— iva air. ay. «.t.4.] ‘in order to sanctify it, after having cleansed it through. 
the bath of water, by means of the word.” In His sacrificial death, namely, 
Christ’s intention with regard to His future church had this aim, that, after 
having by baptism brought about for its members the forgiveness of their 
pre-Christian sins, He would make it partaker of Christian-moral holiness 
by means of the gospel. That cleansing is the negative side of that, which 
Christ contemplated with regard to His church in His death, and this sanc- 
tification by means of the gospel constantly influencing the baptized is the 
positive side ; the former the antecedens, ‘‘ antecedent,” the latter the conse- 
quens, ‘* consequent ;” and both are caused by the atoning death, which is 
the causa meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” of the forgiveness of sins brought 
about by means of baptism, and the contents of the gospel as the word of 
the cross. The sanctifying influence of the latter is the efficacy of the Holy 
Spirit, who works by means of the gospel (vi. 17) ; but the Holy Spirit is 
subject to Christ (2 Cor. iii. 18), and Christ also communicates Himself in 
the Spirit to men’s hearts (Rom. viii. 9 f.) ; hence it is said with justice 
that Christ sanctifies the church through the word (comp. also ii. 21), in 
which case it is self-evident to the Christian consciousness that the opera- 
tive principle therein is the Spirit operating by means of the word. The Vul- 
gate translates xa6ap. mundans, ‘‘ cleansing,” and Zanchius says: ‘‘ modum 
exprimit, quo eam sanctificet,” ‘‘he expresses the mode, whereby he 
sanctifies it.” So, too, Harless, who holds dyidoy and kafapicac not to be 
different notions, but the latter to be a more precise definition of the for- 
mer, which signifies purum reddere a culpa peccati, ‘‘ to render pure from the 
guilt of sin.” The aorist participle would not be opposed to this view, be- 
cause it could express that which is coincident in point of time with dy.doy 
(see on i. 9) ; but it is opposed by the fact that év pfuare cannot be joined 
to kafapicac (see below), but sanctification by the word must of necessity be 
something other than the cleansing by baptism, as also at 1 Cor. vi. 11 
(comp. Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16), the cleansing by means of ee (aredovoacle) 


precedes the sanctification (jyiaofyre).! Comp. Tit. ili. 5—7.2— 76 Aovrpé tod 


1In Act. Thom. p. 40 f. : 
cis THY OHV TOlmYNY Kadapicas avTos év TO OO 
Aoutpe k.7.A., ‘‘ Mingle them with thy fold, 


emaculetur ; care ungitur, ut anima conse- 
cretur,” ‘*The flesh is washed, in order 
that the soul may be cleansed ; the flesh is 


katau..Eov avtovs 


having cleansed them in thy laver,” the act 
of the xarductéov x.7.A., is (in opposition to 
Harless) conceived of as immediately swb- 
sequent to the act of the xadapioas x.7.A, 
The Fathers, too, separate the cleansing 
and the sanctifying of the person who re- 
ceives baptism. So e.g., Justin Martyr, de 
resurrect. in Grabe, Spicil. II. p. 189. Tertull. 
de resurrect. 8: “Caro abluitur, ut anima 


anointed that the soul may be consecrated.” 
Cypr. ad Donat. de gratia, p.3: **‘ Undae 
genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersa 
in expiatum pectus serenum desuper se 
lumen infudit,” “‘ By the aid of the genital 
wave, the stain of the former life being cleans- 
ed, the light from above infuses itself into 
the expiated breast,” ete. 

2 Hofmann, II. 2, p. 135, would, in opposi- 


CHAP. V., 26. 513 
wdatoc| (genitive materiae, ‘‘of material”) denotes the well-known bath of 
water kav’ égoy7v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” which is administered by baptism. We 
have thus here not simply an adlusion to baptism,’ but a designation of the 
same (comp. Tit. ili. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11), and an allusion to the bath of the 
bride before the wedding-day ; see on ver. 27. — év pyyati] belongs to ay:doy 
(comp. John xvii. 17), but is not placed immediately after it, because the 
two verbal definitions dyidoy and xafapicac, and again the two instrumental 
definitions 76 Aovtpe tov idaroc and év pyuazi, are intended to stand together, 
whereby the structure of the discourse is arranged of set purpose conform- 
ably to the sense and with emphatic distinctness. fjua is the gospel, 7d pija 
mec miotew, Rom. x. 8, comp. 17, Eph. vi. 17, Heb. vi. 5, and here stands 
without an article, because, denoting the word xa7’ éfoy#v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” 
it could be treated like a proper noun, such as véuoc, yapic, and the like. 
The connecting of év yy. with ayaoy is followed also by Jerome, Castalio, 
Calevius, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Winer, p. 125, Riickert, Bisping, Bleek.? 
Others, however, join it to 76 Aovrpé tov idartoc,* in which case they under- 
stand by pjua either the baptismal formula,* or the divine precept,’ or the 
divine promise,® or ‘‘lavacro invocatione divini nominis efticaci,” ‘‘ the laver 
efficacious by the invocation of the divine name,” ’ or the gospel,* or the divine 
power and efficacy in the word of truth, so that év pjuatcis equivalent to év rreb- 
patt.° But all these explanations break down in presence of the fact, that we 
should need to read 7¢ Aovtpa@ tov bdaToc T@, OF Tov év PHu., Since neither 7d Aoutpdév 
nor 7d idwp admits of being joined into unity of idea with év pjyare 3° as well 
as of the fact, that the special interpretations of pia, except that of gospel, 
are purely invented. Others have combined év jj. with cafapicac,” in which 
case likewise év jju. has been explained by some of the words of the institu- 
tion and their promise,” by others of the gospel,’* while Harless trans- 


tion to the simple and clear course of the 
representation, combine kadtapioas x«.r.d. 
with the following “va rapactyoyn, but for 
the invalid reason that afterwards thy 
exkAyjovay is repeated, and not the mere 
ai7Tyv used. Asif Paul might not have used 
the mere eatry¥v even with this combination ! 
And how often do all writers repeat the 
noun with emphasis (so here), or for the 
sake of perspicuity, instead of using the 
pronoun! Comp. on iv. 16. 

1 Grotius, Homberg. 

2 Against de Wette’s objections is to be 
observed, (1) that, according to Rom. x. 8, 
17, pyxa can certainly be taken as the 
gospel ; (2) that sanctification is wrought 
indeed through the Spérif, but the Spirit is 
mediated through the gospel Gal. iii.5; (8) 
that the order of the words is not forced, 
but purposely chosen. 

3Luther: “by the water-bath in the 
word.” 

4 Chrysostom: év pymate wolw; év dvépmate 
TOU TaTpds Kal TOD Viov Kal TOV ayiov mVEV- 
gatos, “In what word? In the name of the 


33 


Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost ;” comp. Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Oecumenius, Ambrosiaster, Menochius, 
Calovius, Flatt, de Wette, and others. 

5“TLavationem. . . nitentem divino man- 
dato,” “‘ a washing resting upon the divine 
command,” Storr. 

6‘ Qua vis et usus signi explicatur,” 
“whereby the force and use of the sign are 
explained,” Caivin; comp. Michaelis, 
Knapp. Tychsen. 

7 Erasmus. 

8 Augustine, Estius, Flatt, Holzhausen, 
and others. 

% Olshausen. 

10 Such as at évtoAai év d0ymacr, ii. 15, or 7 
miotis ev Xp., or the like. 

11 Syriae, which inserts cat before ev py ; 
Bengel, Baumgarten, Matthies, Harless. 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann; perhaps 
also Beza and Calvin ; Meier is quite indis- 
tinct. 

12 Baumgarten. 

13 Syriac, Bengel: ‘“‘in verbo est vis mun- 
difica, et haec exseritur per lavacrum,” 


514 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
lates : ‘‘ by way of utterance, by way of promise,” which can refer only to the 
promise given with the institution ; and Hofmann : with a word, which is 
alleged to mean : so that He uttered His effective will, that it should become 
clean. But it is altogether arbitrary, since xafapicac already has a modal 
definition, to attach év pjuare thereto in addition, and on the other hand to 
leave dy:don isolated, although év pj. can very suitably as regards sense be 
attached to dy:acy ; further, that which cleanses, é.e., that which not merely 
symbolically represents the cleansing,’ but does away with the pre-Chris- 
tian guilt of sin, is baptism,? comp. also 1 Pet. iii. 21, Acts ii, 38, xxii. 16, 
and not the pjua, whether we understand thereby the gospel or the words of 
the institution ; lastly, the sense by ‘‘ way of promise” Paul would have 
known how to express otherwise than in so indefinite and enigmatic a 
manner, such as, possibly, by kar’ érayyediav, Gal. ili. 29 ; as, indeed, also 
the sense understood by Hofmann could not have been more indistinctly 
conveyed than by the bare év pyuare.* Grotius combines éy pjyate with 
xalap., but supplies é¢ before éy 7g Aovtp@ : ‘‘ verbo suo quasi balneo,” ‘by 
his word asabath.” As if one could simply thus supply é6¢ ! Lastly, Koppe 
is quite wrong in holding that év pjuate iva is in accordance with the 
Hebrew 4yx 333 Sy, ‘upon the word which,” nothing more than the bare 
iva. Not even the LXX. have translated thus barbarously! [See Note 
LV., p. 525 seq. | 

Ver. 27. Aim of the dy:don év phuatt, and so jfinal aim of the éavrdv rapé- 
Soxev brép avtae, to be realized at the Parousia. Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 2. zapac- 
thon is already rightly referred to the time of the conswmmatio saeeuli, *‘ consum- 
mation of the world,” by Augustine, Jerome, Primasius, Thomas, Beza, Estius, 
Calovius, and others, including Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek ; 
while the Greek Fathers, Lyra, Cajetanus, Bucer, Wolf, Bengel, and others, 
including Harless and Hofmann, p. 136, think of an act of Christ in the 
aidv obroc, ‘* this world,” and many others do not at all declare their views 
with regard to the time. But if iva rapaor. «.7.2. is not to apply to the time 
of the Parousia, it must either be taken as the design of the xcafapioac,* or 
as a parallel to iva abriv dydoy.® The former is not admissible, because év 
phuatt, which itself belongs to dydon (see on ver. 26), stands between ; nor 
yet is the latter, because dy:dcy does not denote the same thing with xaBapioag 
(see on ver. 26), but the making holy through the word ; and this making 
holy cannot from its nature be parallel to the momentary act of presenting of 
the church asa glorious and spotless one, but can only be antecedent, so 


““in the word is the cleansing force, and 
this is exerted through the laver,’’ comp. 
Matthies and Baumgarten-Crusius, as also 
Schenkel. 

1 Schenkel. 

2This also in opposition to Theile in 
Winer’s Haeget. Stud. p. 187: €v pyuate is a 
sort of correction of 76 Aovtpe@ Tod VéaTos. 

3What Hofmann, II. 2, p. 191, oddly 
enough adduces by way of elucidation: 
“As the husband by the word, which ex- 


presses his will to make a woman his wife, 
takes away from her the reproach of her 
virgin state (comp. Isa. iv. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 36), 
so has Christ done for the church,” drags 
in something entirely foreign to the matter, 
and, indeed, something very wnsuitable, as 
though the church were thought of as 
Tapdevos VTEpaK}.os | 

4 Bengel. 

5 Harless. 


CHAP. V., 27. 515 
that this presentation must be the final result of the sanctifying which has 
already taken place through the word. — rapaorjoy| might set forth, present, 
coram sisteret, namely, as His bride. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2. The view of Har- 
less, that the church is conceived of not as bride, but as spotless offering 
(on wapacr. comp. Rom. xii. 1), is opposed to the context, and incorrect 
also on account of éav7@, by which, in fact, there would result the concep- 
tion that Christ presents the offering to Himself. No, the union of Christ 
with His Church at the Parousia, in order to confer upon it Messianic bless- 
edness, is conceived of by Paul (as also by Christ Himself, Matt. xxv. 1 ff., 
comp. Rey. xix. 7 ff.; see also John iii. 29) under the figure of the bring- 
ing home of a bride, wherein Christ appears as the bridegroom and sets 
Jorth the bride, ¢.e., His church, as a spotless virgin (the bodily purity is a 
representation of the ethical) before Himself, after He has already in the 
aia obtoc, ‘this world,” cleansed it by the bath of baptism (7.e., blotted out 
the pre-Christian guilt of the church) and sanctified it through His word. To 
deny the reference of xafapicac «.7.A. and of ver. 27 to the circumstances of a 
wedding, and particularly the allusion to the bath to be taken by the bride 
before the wedding-day,’ is an over-refinement of taste at variance with the 
context.*—The presentation in our passage was referred by Kahnis®* to the 
Lord’s Supper, an application which is warranted neither by the context nor 
by the analogy of 2 Cor. xi. 2 and Matt. xxv. —airic éavtoé] so that what 
takes place is not therefore as in the case of the bringing home of actual 
brides by others, but Christ Himself, as He gave Himself to sanctify it, etc., 
presents the church as bride to Himself at His Parousia, and indeed as 
évdofoyv, in glorious beauty (Luke vii. 25; Isa. xxii. 18, al.), which is 
with emphasis placed before 77» éxxAyoiay, and subsequently receives by 
means of pu éyovoay x.7.A..a detached, more precise negative definition 
specially to be brought into prominence.4— oridov] maculam, comp. 2 Pet. 
ii. 13, a word of the later age of Greek, instead of the Attic «iic.° In the 
Jigure is meant a corporeal blemish, but in the reality a moral defilement. 
The same is the case with putida, rugam, ‘‘ wrinkle,” which occurs only here 
in the N. T., but often in the classical writers, not in the LXX. or Apoc- 


rypha. Special distinctions as to what is intended by the two figures are 
arbitrary. So e.g. Estius :° oid. signifies deformitas operis, ‘‘ deformity of 


1 Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, 
and others. 

2 It is certainly obvious that this bathing 
in the case of an actual bride was not the 
business of the bridegroom (as Hofmann ob- 
jects); but in the case of the church con- 
ceived as the bride the cleansing by the 
bath of baptism is the act of the bride- 
groom (who in fact does not cause the 
bride, cleansed and sanctified by him, to be 
presented by others, but presents her to 
himself), and thus Paul has drawn the 
Jigure itself in accordance with the state of 
matters in the reality delineated, as indeed 
frequently figures are modified in accord- 
ance with the thing to be represented 


(comp. on Matt. xxv. 1; Gal. iv. 19). If we 
press the figures beyond the ¢ertiwm com- 
parationis, no one is any longer appropri- 
ate.— On the Aovrpoy vupndicov, ‘* bridal 
laver” (at which cadap. ro Aovtpe Tov VdaTos 
here glances), comp. specially Bos, Hxercitt. 
p. 185 f. ; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 31. 6; 
Becker, Chavicles, ii. p. 460 ff. ; as also Bux- 
torf, Synag. p. 626. 

3 Abendm. p. 144. 

4 With regard to avtis éav7a, comp. 2 Cor. 
1.9; Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 11; Thucyd. vi. 40. 3; 
Kriiger, § 51. 2. 12. 

> See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 28. 

6 After Augustine. 


516 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

work,” and pur. duplicitas intentionis, ‘‘duplicity of intention ;” Grotius : 

the former applies to the carere vitiis, ‘‘to lack faults,” the latter to the 

vegetos semper esse, ‘‘ always to be vigorous,” for good (because wrinkles are 

characteristic of age). — # ts Tav towovTwr] Which belongs to the category of 

such things, of that which disfigures, like spots and wrinkles. — a4” iva 9 

x.7.2.] change of the construction, instead of a4” oicay k.7.A., as If iva wi Eqn 
x.7.A. had been said before. Versatility of the Greek mode of thought and 

expression.!—dyia] the thing signified in place of the figure, which would 
be more congruously expressed by dyvy (2 Cor. xi. 2). —duopoc] i. 4. 

Comp. Cant. iv. 7. Grotius, at variance with the context, holds that Paul 
had in the case of both expressions thought of : ‘‘quales victimae esse de- 

bebant in V. T.,” ‘‘as victims had to be in the O. T.” 

Ver. 28. Oitwc] To refer this, with Meier and Baumgarten-Crusius, as 
also de Wette is disposed to do, to the following ¢,* might, doubtless, be 
admissible in itself (see on 1 Cor. iv. 1), but is here quite out of place ; 
because oirwe would then have an undue emphasis, and the declaration 
would stand without any inner connection with that which precedes. It 
relates to what is said from xaf@¢ kai 6 Xpiordc, ver. 25 onwards to ver. 27, 
and is equivalent to : in accordance with this relation, in keeping with this holy 
love of Christ for the church.2 We may add that Zanchius, who is followed 
by Estius and Harless,* is in error in saying, ‘‘digressus non nihil ad mys- 
terium, nunc ad institutum redit,” ‘‘the digression recurs sometimes to the 
There was no digression in what pre- 
cedes, but a delineation of the love of Christ serving as an example for the 
husbands. — dc ta éavtév odpara] not : like their own bodies,* but : as their 
own bodies. For Christ loved the church not /ike His body, but as His body, 
which the church 7s and He its head, ver. 23. So is also the husband head of 
the wife, and he is to love the wife as his body—which conception, however, 
does not present the Gnostic notion of the z/jpopua,® but, on the contrary, 
comp. 1 Cor: xi. 8. Schoettgen, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, and others make 
like themselves ; but this is in it- 


mystery, but now to the ordinance.” 


©¢ 7a éavt. couata Mean nothing more than : 
self quite arbitrary and without support from linguistic usage, and also ut- 
terly inappropriate to the example of Christ, since we certainly cannot say 
of Christ that He loved the church lize Himself! In the Rabbinical pas- 
sages, too, as Sunhedr. f. 76, 2: ‘‘ qui uxorem amat wt corpus suum,” “ who 
loves his wife as his body,” etc., this wt corpus suum, ‘‘as his body,” is to 


1 See, in general, Matthiae, p. 1527 f. ; 
Winer, p. 509; Buttmann, newtest. G7. p. 205 
[E. 'T. 241]. 


in those words ; but this whole precept is 
by means of ovtws grounded on what is said 
from kadas> x. 6 Xp., ver. 25, onward. 


2 Estius likewise would have it so under- 
stood, unless ottws Kat ot avdpes odetAovaor 
be read; which, however, is really to be 
read, see the critical remarks. 

3 Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. 1. 39; Herm. 
ad Viger. p. 798. 

4 Who thinks that Paul is only resuming 
the simple injunction of ver. 25, with the 
expansion ws 7a é€avtav cwuara, Certainly 
the main point of the precept, ver. 28, lics 


5 Meier; comp. also Grotius, who here 
brings in the entirely heterogeneous com- 
parison : “ Sicuti corpus est instrumentum 
animi, ita uxor est instrumentum viri ad 
res domesticas, ad quaerendos liberos,” “As 
the body is the instrument of the mind, so 
the wife is the instrument of the husband for 
domestic affairs, for obtaining children.” 

6 Baur. 


CHAP. V., 29} 517 
be taken literally, and that in accordance with the mode of regarding man 
and wife as one flesh. We may add that Paul does not by means of dc r. 
éaut. oOu. pass over into another figure, or even to another view of the sub- 
ject,! but already, in the preceding description of the love of Christ to the 
church, his conception has been that Christ loves the church, His bride, as 
his body, which conception he now first, in the application, definitely indi- 
sates, and in vv. 29-31 more particularly elucidates. — 6 ayarav tiv éavtow 
yuvaixa éavtov ayaa] From the duty of loving their own wives dc ra éavrév 
couara, results—inasmuch as in fact according to this the wife belongs es- 
sentially to the proper self of the husband as such—the proposition of con- 
jugal ethics, that the love of one’s own wife is love of oneself. This proposition 
Paul lays down, in order to treat it more in detail, vv. 29-82, and finally 
repeat it in the form of a direct precept in ver. 33. 

Ver. 29. Tap] assigns the reason of what immediately precedes, and that so, that 
this statement of the reason is intended to impel to the exercise of the self-love 
involved in the love to the wife. The connection of the thoughts, namely, is 
this : ‘‘ He who loves his own wife, loves himself ; for, if he did not love her, 
he would hate his own flesh, which is so repugnant to nature that no one has 
ever yet done it, but rather every one does the opposite, as also Christ—and 
that gives to this natural relation the highest consecration—acts with regard 
to the church, because this constitutes the members of His body.” — roré] 
ever, not, as Mayerhoff would take it:? formerly, in the heathen state, the 
contrast to which is supposed to be : but possibly now, under the influence 
of an asceticism directed against marriage—a view, which the present 
tenses that follow ought to have precluded. — rv éavrov capxa| capf is here 
indifferent® without the conception of what is sinful.* Paul might have 
written cova instead,® but chose cdpxa, because the idea of the pia capé, 
which is realized in the married state, is already (see ver. 21) present to his 
mind. — a/2’] se. éxacroc.° — éxtpéger] enutrit, ‘‘nourishes.”” The compound 
form denotes the development that is brought about by the nourishing ; 
comp. vi. 4.7 — @aArec] makes it warm, fovet (Vulgate) ; Goth : ‘‘vurmeith.” 
It is thus to be taken in its proper signification.* Bengel aptly says : ‘‘id 
spectat amictum,” ‘‘ this refers to clothing, as nourishing does to food.” The 
‘* he fosters it,” Luther. Without suppert from lin- 
guistic usage. —It is, we may add, self-evident that oideic . 
expresses a proposition of experience, the correctness of which holds asa 
general rule, and is not set aside by exceptional cases. The erucifying of 
the flesh, however, in Gal. v. 24, has regard to the sinful cap£. —Kaldc Kai 6 
Xp. tiv éxKdAgo.] sc. extpéder kat POdArer, Which is here, of course, to be inter- 





usual interpretation is : 


avrny 


' Riickert. corporis nostri caritatem,” ‘‘ I confess that 


. 


2 Woloss. p. 144. 

3 Comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 425. 

#See also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. 
p. 54. 

5 Curtius, vil. 1: ‘‘ corporibus nostris, 
quae utique non odimus,” ‘with our 
bodies, which assuredly we do not hate ;’” 
Seneca, Zp. 14: ‘“‘fateor insitam nobis esse 


love of-our body is implanted in us.” 

6 See Stallbaum, ad Flat. Rep. p. 3806 D; 
ad Symp. p. 192 E. 

7 See the passages in Wetstein. 

8 Hom. Odyss. xxi. 179, 184, 246; Xen. Cyr. 
v. 1.11; Soph. Phil. 88; also Theocr. xiv. 
88; Deut. xxii.6; Job xxxix. 14; 1 Thess. 
ii. 8. 


518 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

preted metaphorically of the loving operation of Christ for the salvation of 
His church, whose collective prosperity He carefully promotes. To bring 
out by interpretation specially two elements' is arbitrary. According to 
Kahnis,? Christ nourishes the church as His body by the communication of 
His body in the Supper. But apart from the fact that @aare: does not suit 
this, there isno mention at all of the Lord’s Supper in the whole connection. 
Comp. on rapacr., ver. 27, and see on ver. 30 ff. The xa@d¢ kai 6 Xp." 
vv éxxA. is the sacred refrain of the whole Christian ethics of marriage ; 
comp. vv. 28, 20. 

Ver. 30. Reason why Christ éxrpédec kai OaAwec the church : because we are 
members of His body. jédn is prefixed with emphasis ; for we are not an 
accidens, ‘‘accident,” but integral parts of His body. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 27. 
— &k The capKoc avToU K. EK TOV doTéwv avTov| More precise definition of the pé27 
rov cdmatoc avrov just said, in order to express this relation as strongly as 
possible : (proceeding) from His flesh and from ITis bones. This form of 
expression is a reminiscence of Gen. ii. 23,5 where Adam expresses the origin 
of Eve out of his bones and out of his flesh,#—to which origin the deriva- 
tive relation of Christians to Christ is analogous, of course not physically, 
but in the spiritual, mystical sense, tnasmuch as the Christian existence as 
such—the specific being and spiritual nature of Christians—proceeds from 
Christ, has in Christ its principle of origination, asin a physical manner Eve 
proceeded from Adam. The at any rate non-literal expressions are not in- 
tended to bear minuter interpretation. They do not affirm that believers 
are produced and taken out of Christ’s glorified body,® which is already for- 
bidden by the expression ‘‘ flesh and bones.” Rather is the same thing in- 
tended—only brought, in accordance with the connection, into the definite 
sensuously genetic form of presentation suggested by Gen. /.c.—which else- 
where is denoted by xawy xriow (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15), as well as by ¢@ 
dé ovKére éy@, CH dF Ev Emo Xprordc (Gal. ii. 20), by Xpiordv évedboacbe (Gal. ii. 
27), by the relation of the & xvevua eiva to Christ (1 Cor. vi. 17), and in 
general by the expressions setting forth the Christian zat:yyeveoia.° Comp. 
the xowovdv yivechar Oeiac ooewe, 2 Pet. i. 4. With various modifications it 
has been explained of the spiritual origination from Christ already by Chry- 
sostom (who understood the regeneration by baptism), Ambrosiaster, Theo- 
doret, Oecumenius,’? Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Vorstius,* Calvin (‘‘qui 





1 Grotius: ‘* nutrit eam verbo et Spiritu, 
vestit virtutibus,”’ ‘‘nourishes it with His 
word and Spirit ; clothes it with virtues.” 

2 Abendm. p. 143 f. 

3 This reminiscence the more readily sug- 
gested itself to the apostle, not only in 
general, because he was wont to think of 
Christ as the second Adam (Rom. v. 12 ff.), 
but also specially because he was just 
treating of the subject of marriage. 

4 That Paul should not prefix é« Tay 
octewv, aS in Gen. ii. 23, but é« THs capkos, 
was quite naturally suggested to him by 
ver. 29. The explanation of Bengel is arbi- 
trary and far-fetched. 


5 Gess, Person Christi, p. 274 ff. ; comp. 
Bisping. 

6 Philo also, p. 1094, applies the words of 
Gen. l.c. to a spiritual relation—to the rela- 
tion of the soul to God. If the soul were 
better and more like God, it would be able 
to make use of those words, because, 
namely, it ov« éativ aAdotpia avtod, adda 
opddpa oixeca, ‘is not foreign to Him, but 
emphatically His own.” ; 

7 €& avtov Sé, Kad atapxy Nuav eat THs Sev- 
Tépas TAdgews, WaoTep ex TOD Adam dia THY TPw- 
cv, “Of Him, as He is our beginning of the 
second creation, as Adam was by the first.” 

8 “Spirituali tantum ratione ex ipso 


Ps 


CHAP.OVS, 34s 519 
spiritus sui virtute nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vitam ex eo hauriamus,” 
‘who by the virtue of His Spirit inserts us into His body, that we may derive 
life from Him’), Calovius, Bengel, Matthies, de Wette,1 Hofmann, Reiche, 
and others ; while, withal, Koppe (so also Meier) thought only arctissimam 
quamlibet conjunctionem, ‘a most intimate union,” to be denoted, whereby 
justice is not done to the genetic signification of the éx. Others explained it: 
in so faras we have the same human nature as He. So Irenaeus, Jerome, 
Augustine, Thomas, Michaelis ; comp. also Stolz and Rosenmiiller. Decid- 
edly erroneous, partly because Paul could not in this sense say : ‘‘ we are 
of Christ’s flesh and bone,” but only the converse : ‘‘ Christ is of our flesh 
and bone” (Rom. i. 3, ix. 5; John i. 14) ; partly because the element of 
having like nature with Christ would apply not merely to Christians, but 
to men as such generally. Others refer it to the crucifixion of Christ: ‘ex 
carne ejus et ossibus crucifivis, i.e., ex passione ejus predicata et credita 
ortum habuit ecclesia,” ‘‘ from his flesh and crucified bones, 7.e., from his 
passion preached and believed, the church has its origin,” Grotius.* But the 
crucifixis, *‘ crucified,” is purely imported, and could the less be guessed 
here, inasmuch as from the words the history of Adam and Eve inevitably 
came to be recalled ; and there is nothing to remind us* of the ‘‘martyr- 
stake of the cross,” upon which Christ ‘‘ gave up” His flesh and bones 
“‘and suffered them to be broken” (? see John xix. 83, 36). Others, finally, 
have explained it of the real communion with the body of Christ in the Lord’s 
Supper. So recently,‘ in addition to Kahnis and Thomasius,° also Harless 
and Olshausen, the latter of whom says : ‘‘it is the self-communication of 
His divine-human nature, by which Christ makes us to be His flesh and 
bone ; He gives His people His flesh to eat and His blood to drink.” But 
not even the semblance of a plea for explaining it of the Supper hes in the 
words ; since Paul has not written kai éx tov aiatoc avtov, Which would have 
been specific in the case of the Supper, but kai éx rod doréwy adrowv! Riickert has 
renounced any attempt at explanation, and doubts whether Paul himself 
thought of anything definite in the words. A very needless despair of 
exegesis ! [See Note LVL, p. 526. ] 

Ver. 31. Not a citation from Gen. ii. 24, but (comp. vi. 2) Paul makes 
these words of Scripture, which as such were well known to the readers, 
his own, while the deviations from the LXX. are unimportant and make no 
difference to the sense. What, however, is spoken, Gen. /.c., of the union 
of husband and wife, Paul applies by typical inrerpretation to the coming 


Christo quasi procreatos esse,” ‘‘ Only in 
a spiritual manner, as if they were pro- 


their interpretation. So Beza and Calvin 
say that it is obsignatio et symbolum, “a 


ereated from Christ Himself.” 

1 Who, however, in the second edition, 
regards the words as spurious. 

2 Comp. already Cajetanus, as also Zan- 
chius, Zachariae, Schenkel, having refer- 
ence to John vi. 51 f., xiv. 18 ff. 

3 In opposition to Schenkel. 

4 Many of the older expositors, following 
Theodoret and Theophylact, at least 
mixed up the Supper in various ways in 


sealing and symbol,” of the mystie fellow- 
ship with Christ here meant. Grotius 
found an allusion to the Supper; while, on 
the other hand, Calovius maintained that 
we were ex Christo, “* of Christ,’? not only by 
regeneration, but also by the communica- 
tion of His body and blood in the Lord’s 
Supper. 
SMe ta 


520 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


(future: xarareie x.t.2.) union of Christ with the church (see ver. 32), 4 
union which shall take place at the Parousia, up to which time the church 
is the bride of Christ, and at which time it is then nuptially joined with 
Him (see on ver. 27),—and so the apostle expresses this antitype of the con- 
jugal union in the hallowed words of Scripture, in which the type, the 
marriage union in the proper sense, is expressed. We have accordingly 
to explain it thus : For this reason, because we are Christ’s members, of His 
flesh and of His bone, shall a man (i.e., antitypically, Christ, at the Parousia) 
leave father and mother (i.e., according to the mystic interpretation of the 
apostle : He will leave His seat at the right hand of God) and be united with 
his wife (with the church), and (and then) the two (the man and the wife, 2.e., 
Christ who has descended and the church) shall be one flesh (form one ethi- 
* cal person, as married persons by virtue of bodily union, become a physical 
unity). Those expositors who, in keeping with the original sense of Gen, 
l.c., take the words of aetual marriage,’ have against them as well the 
avtt tovrov, Which cannot be referred without arbitrariness to anything else 
than what immediately precedes, as also the future expression, which (as 
also in Gen. /.c.) must denote something yet to come ; and not less the 
statement of Paul Himself, ver. 32, according to which av#pwroc must be 
interpreted of Christ, and tiv yvvaixa of the church, not merely perhaps? is to 
be so interpreted. Hofmann likewise * understands it of real marriage, and 
sees all difficulties vanish if we more closely connect ver. 32 with ver. 31, 
so that rd pvot#piov tovro sums up the Old Testament passage itself and 
makes this the subject, and then the sense is: ‘* That, as the passage affirms, 
the marriage communion is the most intimate of all communions for this reason, 
because the wife proceeds from the husband—this mystery, which was foreign to 
the Gentiles, is great. It is a highly significant mystery of the order laid 
down by the creation, a most important revelation of the divine counsel in this 
domain, which the apostle interprets as applying to Christ and the church, 
because marriage in this respect has its higher counterpart in the domain of 
redemption, but without excluding its validity also for the married as regards 
their relation regulated by the creation.” This view is incorrect, for the very 
reason that to make rd jvorjpiov be said in reference to the Gentiles is quite 
foreign to, and remote from, the connection ; because, further, Paul must 
have written é@ dé viv Aéyw 3 because Aéyw does not mean ‘‘I say of it,” but 
“‘T say @t,” @.e., L interpret it ; because av7i rovrov would remain entirely out 
of connection with that which precedes, and thus the passage of Scripture 
would make its appearance quite abruptly ; because, if the reader was to 
understand the whoie passage of Scripture as the subject, summed up in 7d 
pvoTtnp. Touro, of what follows, the apostle must have indicated this, in order 
to be intelligible, by something like 75 dé avri tobrov k.7.A., wrothpioy 
péya éotiv ; and because, finally, the validity of the fundamental law of 
marriage, ver. 31, for married persons is so entirely self-evident, that a quite 


So most expositors, including Matthies, an abrupt form merely as a hint thrown 
Meier, Schenkel, Bleek, Riickert, who, out for the more initiated. 
however, here too despairs of more precise 2 Reiche. 
explanation, as the passage stands forth in 3 TI. 2, p. 139. 


CHAP: '¥.,/31. 521 


unsuitable thought (‘‘ but without excluding,” etc.) is attributed to the jv 
of ver. 33. — Those, further, who explain it of Christ and the church, as Hun- 
nius, Balduin, Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, are mistaken in be- 
lieving the connection with Christ already existing in the present aidy as that 
which is meant ; inasmuch as in the caradeier tov war. k. 7. unt. they think 
of the incarnation,’ or generally of the fact that ‘‘ Christus nihil tam carum 
habuit, quod non nostri causa abdicaverit,” ‘‘ Christ held nothing so dear 
as not to have abdicated it for our sake,”’* or even of the separation of Christ 
from His nation ® or from the synagogue ;* while Harless and Olshausen 
pass- over xatadeiper Tov rarépa k.7.2. Without more precise explanation, as 
unessential to the connection and aim, and regard only kai éoovrar oi 0. eic 
o. gz. as the main point, explaining it of the Lord’s Supper.’ But the whole 
reference to the already present connection with Christ is incorrect, because 
this connection was just before expressed in the present form by péA7 éopiv 
x.7.2., but now upon this present relation is based the setting in of a future 
one (karadeiper x.7.2. ; Observe the futwre forms), and that by avri totbror, 
quite as in Gen. il. 24 by means of évexey robrTov the future relation of 
marriage is deduced from the then existing relation of Adam and Eve. 
These expositors, besides, overlook the fact that in the aiéy oiroc, ‘‘ this 
world,” Christ is not yet husband, but until the Parousia still bridegroom of 
the church (ver. 27), which He only at the Parousia presents to Himself as 
a purified and sanctified bride for nuptial union. Moreover, the setting 
aside of the whoie portion kataAciec dvOpwroe Tov rat. K.t.2., On the part of 
Harless and Ol]shausen, is a purely arbitrary proceeding. — avti toitov] See 
Winer, p. 326. It is distinguished from the évexey rotrov in the LXX. only 


by its placing the cause and the fact thereby conditioned in comparison 


1“ Etiam Christus patrem quasi reliquit,”’ 
“*Christ also, as it were, left His Father,” 
Bengel. 

* Grotius. 

3 Michaelis. 

4 Bisping. 

® What in marriage the fleshly union is, 
that in the connection of the church with 
Christ the substantial union by means of 
the Supper is alleged tobe! “As man 
and wife are indeed always one in love, but in 
the elements of conjugal union, in which the 
specific nature of marriage consists, become in 
aspecial sense one flesh ; sois also the church 
as a whole, and each congregation, like each 
soul in it, always one spirit with Christ, the 
Head of the body; but in the eements of the 
sacred Supper the believing soul celebrates in a 
very special sense the union with its Saviour, 
in that it takes up into itself His flesh and 
blood, and therewith the germ of the immortal 
body.” This fanciful view of Olshausen is 
without any warrant in the context, and at 
variance with the future cataAeiwer, which 
must—and that indeed according to Gen. 


ii.—express something not yet accomplished, 
but only ¢o be expected in the future. More- 
over, the ‘leaving,’ ete., does not at all 
suit the conception of the communion of 
Christ with believers in the Supper, and 
least of all the orthodox Lutheran concep- 
tion of ubiquity. [See above, Note XIV.] 
Nevertheless Kahnis (Abendm. p. 144) has 
entirely acceded to the view of Olshau- 
sen. He objects to the explanation of the 
union of Christ with the church at the 
Parousia, that this union cannot possibly be 
thought of as ‘‘a sacrificial renunciation, 
on the part of Christ, of His heavenly 
glory.’’ But the matter is neither so thought 
of nor so represented. That which is meant 
by kxaradciwer, the coming again of Christ 
from heaven, will—and this was well known 
to the believing consciousness of every 
reader—take place not without His heavenly 
glory, but with that glory; and by the 
union, which is expressed in the typical. 
representation mpookoAAnOycerat x.7.A., the 
cvvdoéac0jvac of the believers will then be 
accomplished. Comp. Col. iii. 4. 


mh | 


22 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


with each other according to the conception of requital (for this). The 
reference of avri robrov, with regard to which many are entirely silent, can 
be found only in ver. 80 : because our relation to Christ is this. See above. 
Other references, as those of Estius : ‘‘ quia mulier formata est ex ossibus et 
carne viri,” ‘‘ because the woman was formed of the man’s flesh and bones,” 
and Holzhausen : ‘‘ because the man, in loving his wife, loves himself,” ? 
are forced just because of their taking ver. 31 not according to its mystic 
reference, but of real marriage. — av6épu70c| a human being, t.e., according to 
the context, a man,? by which, however, according to the mystical interpre- 
tation of the apostle, Christ is antitypically te be understood. — kai ri 
pyrépa] is doubtless taken up along with the rest as a constituent part of 
the words of Adam, but is not destined for a special exposition in the 
typical reference of the passage to Christ, since caraAeiwer tov matépa avTov 
can, in accordance with that typical reference, only apply to the descend- 
ing of Christ from the right hand of God, which will ensue at the Parousia. 
Then the cirOpovoc of the Father comes down to earth, to wed Himself 
(Matt. xxv. 1) to the church, the bride, 2 Cor. xi. 2. 

Ver. 32. For the understanding of ver. 31 in the sense of the apostle an 
exegetical gloss was necessary, which is here given: This mystery is great, 
is Important and exalted in its contents, but [say it, adduce it (namely, this 
mystery, by which is meant just the declaration of Gen. ii. 24), in reference 
to Christ and the church. — 7d pvoripiov rovT0] So Paul terms those Old Testa- 
ment words just employed by him, in so far as they have a hidden meaning 
not recognized without divine enlightenment.4— éy@ dé] 6, which Holz- 
hausen even declares to be superfluous, has emphasis : 7, however (dé meta- 
batic), opposed to the possible interpretations which might be given to the 
mysterious utterance. — cic Xporov Kal ei¢ THv ExxAnoiay] so that we have thus 
under @v@pwo7oc to understand Christ, and under 7 yuvy avtov the church. 
This has been rightly discerned already by the Fathers,*® only they should 
not have thought of the coming of Christ in the flesh,* but of the Parousia. 
See on ver. 31. Lastly, it is worthy of notice simply under a historical 
point of view, that Roman Catholics,* on the ground of the Vuigate, which 
translates pvotipiov by sacramentum, proved from our passage *® that marriage 
is a sacrament. 





It is not this that is conveyed in the passage, as indeed in 
general marriage ‘‘non habet a Christo dnstitutionem sacramentalem, non 
Jormam, non materiam, non jinem sacramentalem,” ‘‘ has from Christ neither 
a sacramental institution, nor form, nor substance, nor end,” but it is rather 


1 Comp. avé’ ®yv, and see Matthiae, Hor. p. 784. Philo, p. 1096, allegorizes those 


p. 1327; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 170. 

2 Comp. Meierand Matthies. 

3’ Without on that account av@pwmos stand- 
ing for avyp, see Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 593. 

4With the Rabbins, too, the formula 
mysterium magnum, “a great mystery” 
(Jalkut. Rud. f. 59, 4: SVD NP) N) is 
very common. See Schoettgen, Horae, 
p. 783 f. 

§ Later Rabbinico-mystical interpretations 
of marriage may be seen in Schoettgen, 


words in reference to reason, which for- 
sakes wisdom and follows the senses. 

6 See Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
lact, Jerome. 

7 Tn connection with which Jerome inter- 
preted thy uyntépa of the heavenly Jerusa- 
lem ; comp. Estius. 

5 But not Erasmus, Cajetanus, or Estius. 

* See also Catech. Rom. ii. 8. 16 f. 

10 Calovius, and see the Apol. Conf. Aug. 
M. 204, J. 215. 


CHAP, V.5 33% d20 


the sacredly ideal and deeply moral character, which is forever assured to 
marriage by this typical significance in the Christian view. We may add 
that monogamy is presupposed as self-evident, but does not form the set pur- 
pose of the passage, which would be purely imported.’ 

Ver. 33. TlAyv] is usually explained to the effect, that it leads back 
to the proper theme after the digression of vv. 80-32, or merely ver. 32.7 
‘* Paulus prae nobilitate digressionis quasi oblitus propositae rei nune ad 
rem revertitur,” ‘‘ Paul as it were forgetting his subject, through the 
nobleness of the digression, now returns to it,” Bengel. A digression, 
however, has certainly not taken place, but vv. 30, 31 essentially belong 
to the description of the love of Christ to the church, and ver. 82 was a 
brief gloss pertaining to the right understanding of ver. 31, and not 
a digression. And zA/jv is used by way doubtless of breaking off (Luke 
xix. 27, al.), but not of resuming. So also here: Yet—not further to 
enter upon the subject of this jworhpiov—ye also ought (as Christ the 
church), each one individually, in such manner (ovtuc, 7.e., in keeping with 
the ideal of Christ contained in this yvorjpiov) to love his own wife as himself. 
With «ai the persons appealed to, and with otvw¢ the mode of what they are 
to do, are placed in a parallel with Christ. — oi caf iva] ye one by one, vos 
singuli, man by man.? The following verb, however, has taken its regimen 
from éxaoroc, not from the proper subject jweic, as often also in classical 
writers.* — The twofold designation oi xa? éva éxacroc strengthens the concep- 
tion, that each one without exception, etc. — dc éavrév] as himself, so that the 
love issues from, and is determined by, the point of view : 6 ayarév tiv 
Eavrov yuvaika éavrov ayara, Ver. 28. —7 dé yuv7y iva doBATa TOV avdpal 7 O& yuvy 
is with emphasis absolutely ° prefixed, not yet dependent on the notion of 
volo (see on 2 Cor. vill. 7) to be supplied in thought before iva. Hence : 
but the wife—she ought to fear her husband. In this brief stern closing utter- 
ance, the apostle, while stating the obligation of the husband to love the 
wife dc éav76v, yet secures as concerns the wife the relation of subordina- 
tion, namely, the duty of reverence for the husband—a duty, which is not 
done away with by that obligation on the part of the husband. ‘‘ Optime 
cohaerebit concordia, si wtrimque constabunt officia,” ‘‘ Harmony will 
best be maintained, if on both sides the duties be diligently observed,” 
Erasmus, Paraphr. Rightly, we may add, in accordance with the context 
Oecumenius defines the notion of ¢0ByAraL: be mpérer yuvaixa goBeiabar, fu?) 
dovdorperac, ‘‘ Not in a servile way, but as is fitting that a wife fear.” See 

V. 22-24. 





1 In opposition to Schwegler, p. 387. Gorg. p. 503 E; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. iii. 1. 
2 Olshausen. 8. 
3 See Matthiae, p. 1357. 5 Winer, p. 506. 


4See Matthiae, p. 765; Stallbaum, ad 


524 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Notes spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


L. Ver. 4. aisypétyc, ka? pwporoyia 7 evtparenia. 


The first is ‘the shameful, whether actively exhibited or passively approved 
in word, gesture or deed ”’ (Ellicott). As to the second, ‘‘that which is meant. 
here by stultiloquy or foolish speaking is the ‘lubricum verbi,’ as St. Ambrose 
calls it, the ‘slipping with the tongue,’ which prating people often suffer, 
whose discourses betray the vanity of their spirit, and discover ‘the hidden 
man of the heart’ (Jeremy Taylor, quoted by Trench). ‘* Luther hits the mark 
with Narrentheidinge, buffoonery, which denotes what is high-flown, pompous, 
in loose discourse’? (Braune). Both Stier and Trench call attention to the 
fact that, considering the sense of ‘‘fool” and ‘folly ” in the N. T., something 
positive as well as negative is here indicated. The classical evtpamedog was 
‘one ready with an answer or repartee.” To be such ‘‘required polish, 
refinement, knowledge of the world, wit.’’ Yet sin, by losing its coarseness, 
only became all the more dangerous. ‘In the finer talk of the world, its 
‘persiflage,’ its ‘badinage,’ there is that which would attract many, whom 
seutrile buffoonery would only revolt and repel’’ (Trench). Itis ‘‘ that ribald- 
ry, studied artifice, polite equivoque, which are worse in many cases than 
open foulness of tongue” (Eadie) ; that finds ‘‘ occasion for wit or levity in 
anything, however sacred, fearing nothing so much as to be dull, and mistak- 
ing all seriousness and reserve for dulness’’ (Barry). ‘‘ Pleasantry of every 
sort is not condemned by the apostle. He seems to refer to wit in connection 
with lewdness — double entendre” (Nadie). Stierremarks that even St. Paul did 
not abstain from wit, as may be seen in Acts xxvi. 29 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. 
xii. 13, and adds: ‘But his wit is holy, full of meaning, and his jesting, if so 
it may be called, is inseparably united with the purest earnestness, as is 
proper. Never from mere pleasure in empty wit do we find the form without 
profitable contents, as well as never to the injury of his neighbor,”’ 


LI. Ver. 13. av yap 70 davepotpmevov dc éEotiv. 


The interpretation of Meyer has been adopted in the English Revised Ver- 
sion, and supported among others by Alford, Ellicott, Barry, Riddle. The 
chief. objection urged by Olshausen and Nadie, ‘that light does not always 
exercise this transforming influence, for the devil and the wicked are reproved 
by the light, without themselves becoming light,’” is answered by Ellicott : 
‘‘ All that is asserted is that ‘whatever is illumined is light ; whether that tend 
to condemnation or the contrary depends upon the nature of the case and 
the inward operation of the outwardly illumining influence.” ‘St. Paul here 
explains still more clearly what he means by illumination. It implies the 
catching the light and reflecting it so as to become a new source of light. It 
must be noted that the subject of the sentence is not ‘the works of darkness,’ 
but ‘all things’ in general. Hence the whole process is described, with almost 
scientific accuracy, as threefold. First, the things or persons are dragged out 
of darkness into light ; then they are illuminated ; lastly, they become light 
in themselves and to others. There are no doubt exceptions to this the right 
and normal process, in the case of the utterly reprobate, who have lost all 


NOTES. 5723) 


power of reflecting light, and are, therefore, dark still in the blaze of noon ; 
but the next verse shows that St. Paul is not contemplating these ; and even 
these may be beacons of warning to others ” (Barry), 


LIT. Ver. 14. did Aéyer. *Eyetpe. 


Better than Meyer's explanation is that of Ellicott : ‘It seems much more 
reverent, as well as much more satisfactory, to say that St. Paul, speaking 
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is expressing in a condensed and 
summary form the spiritual meaning of the passage. The prophet’s imme- 
diate words (Is. Ixi., 1 sq.) supply, in substance, the first part of the quotation ; 
the concluding part is the spiritual application of the remainder of the verse.” 
See Terry’s Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 500 sq.; Toy’s Quotations in the N. T., 
p. 199 sq. 


Litt. Ver. 16. éSayopafouevoe Tov Karpov. 


«That we are to make a wise use of circumstances for our own good or that 
of others, and like prudent merchants to buy up the fitting season for so doing” 
(Ellicoit). Compare Dan. ii. 8: ‘I know that ye would gain the time,” ‘‘i.e., 
catch the opportunity to escape from difficulty ’’ (Barry), 


LIV. Ver. 18. 14) oiv@ pebioKete k.T.A. 


“Tt is a sensation of want, a desire to fly from himself, a craving after some- 
thing which is felt to be out of reach, eager and restless thirst to enjoy some 
happiness and enlargement of heart, that usually leads to intemperance. But 
the Spirit fills Christians and gives them all the elements of cheerfulness and 
peace ; genuine elevation and mental freedom; superiority to all depressing 
influences ; and refined and permanent enjoyment. Of course, if they are so 
filled with the Spirit, they feel no appetite for debasing and material stimnu- 
lants ” (Hadie). 

LY. Ver. 26. év pjuate. 


The construction is peculiar, and grammatical difficulties appear to what- 
ever of the three words this clause be attached, the separation from the ayiacy 
being a great objection to Meyer's view. May not the true solution be indi- 
cated by the incidental remark of Ellicott that it belongs ‘‘to the whole 
expression’? Developing this still further, the idea would become ‘‘that he 
might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the word ; for the means of this cleans- 
ing was by a washing of water, in accordance with and in virtue of the word.”’ 
“Ep pyart, if it be joined with xa@apioac or with 7@ AovTpw Tod bdaToc, Means 
in virtue of a word, viz., of the word of salvation preached, év being taken as in 
Acts iv. 7, 9,10... This xa@., ete., possesses its distinctive power and force 
because it takes place in virtue of a word, and év p. serves only to complete the 
thought, the description of baptism. Hence the omission of the article”’ 
(Cremer’s Lexicon, p, 267). Philippi (v. 1, 197) also calls attention to the 
fact that the omission of the article before the Jyuazc ‘‘marks the close, insep- 
arable connection between the Aourpér bdaro¢ and the pjua.” Accedit verbuin ad 
elementum et fit sacramentum (Augustine). ‘‘It is not the water that produces 
these effects, but the word of God which accompanies and is connected with 
the water, and our faith which relies on the word of God connected with the 


526 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. ‘ 


water’ (Luther, Small Catechism, iv. 3). ‘‘If the word be taken away, the 
water is the same as that with which the servant cooks” (Luther, Large Cate- 
chism, p. 464). 

Ellicott defines fjua as ‘‘the gospel,” i.e., «the word of God preached and 
taught preliminary to baptism,” a view which is perfectly consistent with the 
word of divine institution and promise, since the entire gospel is epitomized 
therein. A 


LVI. Ver. 30. 67¢ péAn éopév K.7.2, 


While any direct allusion to the Lord’s Supper must be rejected, nevertheless, 
as in John vi., a principle is here presented which finds its highest realization 
in that sacrament, 


CHAP. VI. 527 


CHAPTER’ Yi. 


Ver. 1. After iuév Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have év xvpiw, in opposition to B D* F G, 
It. Marcion, Cyril, Cypr. Ambrosiast. Rejected by Mill, suspected by Griesb., 
deleted by Lachm. and Riick., but defended (on the ground of Col. iii. 20) by 
Harless and Reiche. The latter with justice ; since the witnesses who omit do 
not preponderate, and since for the purpose of a gloss not év xupiw but o¢ To 
kupi@ (v. 22) would have suggested itself. If, however, év xvpiw had been added 
from Col. l.c., it would have been brought in after décacov. — Ver, 5. Toi¢g xupioue 
kata odpka] Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Riick.: toi¢ cata capKa 
«vpiowe, following A B 8, min. Clem, Dam. Theophyl. From Col. iii. 22.—Ver. 
6. The article before Xpvovov is, with Lachm. and Tisch. [West. and Hort], in 
accordance with preponderating testimony, to be deleted. — Ver. 7. &¢, which 
is wanting with Elz., is decidedly attested. — Ver. 8. 6 iav tu &xaoroc] Lachm. 
[Treg.] and Riick. have éxacroc 6 éav, which was also recommended by Griesb., 
following ADEFG, min. Vulg. It. Bas. Dam. Other variations are, éxaoro¢ 
édv Tt (B), éav moujo. éxacroc (N*), ev Te TOL. Ex. (N**), 6 Edv Tee ExaoToc (1, 2, 32) 
al.), édv te éxaor. (46, 115, al., Theoph. ms.), éav tig éxaor. (62, 197, al.), €av TLC 
(or 71) dvOpwroc (Chrys. in Comment.). The best attested reading is accordingly 
&xaotoc 6 éav. But if this had been the original one, it would not be at all easy to 
see how it could have given rise to variations, and specially to the introducing 
ofthe 7. The Recepta, on the other hand (again adopted by Tisch.), became very 
easily the source of the other readings, if the copyist passed over from OTI at 
once to the subsequent TI. Thus arose the corruption 6ru éxaoto¢ Toon K.T.A., 
and thence, by means of different ways of restoring what had been omitted, 
were formed the variations, in which case dv@pwroc came in instead of éxacro¢ 
as a gloss, designed to indicate the general sense of éxactoc.—Komweita] A B D* 
FG &* Petr. alex.: xoicetas.! So Lachm. Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], Rick. 
In Col. iii. 25, likewise, these two forms are found side by side in the critical 
witnesses. Nevertheless here, as there, couiceta: is more strongly attested, and 
hence to be preferred. «xoeitae may have originated in a reminiscence of 
1 Pet. v. 4. — Ver. 9. tuav aitov] many variations, among which avr@v x. iav (So 
Lachm, Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], Riick. and Harless; recommended also by 
Griesb.) is that most strongly attested, namely, by A B D* min. Arm. Vulg. Goth. 
Copt. Clem. Pet. Chrys. (alicubi) Damasc. Jer. Aug. Pel. Rightly. The men- 
tion of the slaves (aitv) appeared here partly in itself, partly from a comparison 
with Col. iv. 1, not relevant; hence the Recepta (anew defended by Reiche) 
juav av7ov, in which case ai7ov applies to the masters, just as abrav vyov in 
EF G,and merely juov in 17. Others, leaving the «ai standing, at least pretixed 
juov (L, min. Syr. p. Fathers: dudv xai airov). &* testifies in favor of Lach- 
mann’s reading by éavrav kai tudv, whereas 8**, like the others, has regarded 


1 A reads KOMISETE, and thus testifies indirectly in favor of copicerat. 


528 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


the prefixing of tuav (thus ty. «. éavr.) as necessary. — Ver. 10. 76 Aoiz6v] Lachm. 
Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort. and Riick. read roi Aoirov, following AB &* 17, 73, 
118, Cyril, Procop. Dam. Thus at least not preponderantly supported. In 
favor, however, of To Aorér, testifies also the reading duvayovobe, which is found 
in B17, instead of the following évdvvayoicfe, and probably has arisen from 
the confounding on the part of the copyist of the N in Aourév with the N in 
ENodvvayovobe. Since, moreover, 76 Ao.zrdv better accords with the sense than - 
Tod Aourov (see on Gal. vi. 17), I hold the latter to be a mechanical repetition 
from Gal. l.c. — The following ddeAgoi ov is wanting in BD E &* Aeth. Arm. 
Clar. Germ. Goth. Cyril, Damase. Lucifer, Ambrosiast. Jerome ; while in A! F 
G, codd. Ital. Syr. p. Vulg. Theodoret, only wov is wanting. adeAgoéi pov, which 
Griesb. also holds suspected, and Lachm. Tisch. Rick. | West. and Hort], have 
deleted, is an addition from Phil, iii. 1, iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. And 
this addition, too, tells in favor of the originality of 70 Aoczov. —- Ver. 12. jyuir) 
B D* FG, 52, 115, Syr. Ar. pol. Slav. ant. It. Goth. Lucif. Ambrosiast. : tiv. 
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Rick. But how naturally 
would juiv suggest itself to the copyists, inasmuch as the whole context speaks in 
the second person !—rov cKxorove Todtov] Elz. has tov ox. Tov aiwvoc TovTov, in Op- 
position to decisive witnesses. Expansion by way of gloss. — Ver. 16. éxi zdow] 
Lachm. [West. and Hort] reads év zdow, for which more current expression, 
however, only B 8, min. Vulg. It. and some Fathers testify, and several vss. are 
doubtful. — ra before wexvp. is wanting, indeed, in B D* FG, and is deleted by 
Lachm., but was easily regarded as superfluous and thus passed over. — Ver. 
17. défacHe] is wanting in D* F G, codd. It. and various Fathers, while A D*** 
K Land min. read défacha: (so Matth.), and Arm. places détao0e before Tv mepiked. 
Suspected by Griesb. But if no verb had stood, and a gloss had been supplied, 
we should most naturally expect dva/iaBere to be added. In consideration, 
however, of the seeming redundancy, it is much more likely that the omission 
was made. The infinitive has come in after the preceding ofécar. — Ver. 18. 
aizd Touro] A B &, min. Basil, Chrys. (in commentary) Damasce. have only avr ; 
D* F G have ai7év, and Latins in illwn or in illo s. ipso, which readings likewise 
tell in favor of the simple ai7é. With reason (in opposition to Reiche) rovro is dis- 
approved by Griesb., and rejected by Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., West. and Hort] and 
Riick. An exegetical, more precise definition in accordance with Paul’s practice 
elsewhere. — Ver. 19. dv07] Elz. has do$ein, in opposition to decisive testimony. 
Perhaps occasioned by a mere repetition of the H in copying. — Ver. 21. eidjre 
kai bueic] Lachm. and Rick. read kaiiueic eidj7e. SoA DEFG 8&8, min. Vulg. 
It. Theodoret, Lat. Fathers. In what follows Lachm. and Riick. [West. and 
Hort] place yrwpice: before juiv, following BDE FG &, min. It. Goth. Ambrosi- 
ast. The latter from Col. iv. 7. And the former is to be explained from the cir- 
cumstance that «ai? iweic was, through inattention to the reference of the kat, 
omitted as superfluous (so still in cod. 17), and was thereupon reintroduced 
according to the order of the words which primarily suggested itself, by which 
means it came before eidjrte. 


ContEents.—How the children (vv. 1-8), the fathers (ver. 4), the slaves 
(vv. 5-8), and the masters (ver. 9) are to demean themselves. Concluding 
exhortation to the acquiring of Christian strength, for which purpose the 


1A has adeAdoi only after évévvamotade. 


CHAP. VI.; 1, 2. 529 


readers are to put on the whole armor of God, and thus armed to stand forth, 
in order victoriously to sustain the conflict with the diabolic powers (vv. 
10-17) ; in connection with which they are ever to apply themselves to 
prayer, and to make intercession for all Christians, and, in particular, for 
the apostle (vv. 18-20). Sending of Tychicus (vv. 21, 22). Concluding 
wishes (vv. 23, 24). 

Ver. 1. ’Ev xvpiw| characterizes the obedience as Christian, the activity of 
which moves in Christ, with whom the Christian withal stands in commun- 
ion of life. The reference to God’ is already refuted by the very év 4680 
Xpiorov, iv. 21, placed at the head of all these precepts, as also by the stand- 
ing formula itself (comp. Col. ili. 20). —dixatov] right, ¢.e., kata Tov Tov Ocod 
vouov, ‘‘ according to God’s law,” Theodoret. Comp. Col. iv. 1; Phil. i. 7, 
iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. i. 6 ; Luke xii. 57.—In favor of infant baptism, i.e., in favor of 
the view that the children of Christians were as early as that time baptized, 
nothing at all follows from the exhortation of the apostle to the children.? 
The children of Christians were, through their fellowship of life with their 
Christian parents, even without baptism ayco: (see on 1 Cor, vii. 14 ; Acts xvi. 
15), and had to render to their parents obedience év kupiw. [See Note LVIL, 
p. 557. | 

Ver. 2. The frame of mind towards the parents, from which the braxotew 
just demanded of the children must proceed, is the rywav. Hence Paul con- 
tinues, and that in the express hallowed words of the fourth commandment : 
tia Tov warépa cov k.T.A. (EX. xx. 12; Deut. v. 16). And as he had before 
subjoined the general motive of morality rovro yap éore dixaov, so he 
now subjoins the particular incitement 7ric¢ éorw évtody mpdry év éxayyed., 
so that the relation as well of the two precepts themselves, as of their motives, 
vv. 1, 2, is climactic, and #ric . . . éxayyedia can by no means be a paren- 
- thesis.® —7ric| utpote quae, ‘‘ since it is,” specifies a reason. See on iii. 13. 
—évtoAy mporn év exayyed.| The article is not necessary with the zpér7, which 
is in itself defining, or with the ordinal numbers generally.4 Comp. Acts 
xvi. 12; Phil. i. 12, a7. And the statement that the commandment jirst as 
to number in the Decalogue has a promise, is not inconsistent with the facts, 
since the promise, Ex. xx. 6, Deut. v. 10, is a general one, having reference 
- to the commandments as a whole. Just as little is it to be objected that no 
further commandment with a promise follows in the Decalogue ; for Paul says 
porn, having before his mind not only the Decalogue, but also the entire 
series of all the divine precepts, which begins with the Decalogue. Among the 
commandments, which God has given at the time of the Mosaic legislation 
and in all the subsequent period, the commandment : ‘‘ Honor father and 
mother,” is the first which is given with a promise. The apparent objection 
is thus removed in a simple manner by our taking év7027 as divine command- 
ment in general, and not restricting it to the sense ‘‘commandment in the 


1“ Praeter naturaelegem. . . Dei quoque 2In opposition to Hofmann, Schrifibew. 
auctoritate sancitum docent,” ‘‘In addi- Tks 2 jos Tp 
tion to the law of nature, they teach that 3 Griesbach, Riickert, and others. 
which is established by the authority of 4 Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. vii. 7. 35. 


God,” Calvin ; comp. Wolf. 
34 


530 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

Decalogue.” If Paul had had merely the Decalogue in mind, he must have 
written : the only commandment.’ For the assumption that ‘‘it is the first, 
not with regard to those which follow, but to those which have preceded,” ? 
would not even be necessarily resorted to, if it were really established— 
which, however, is assumed entirely without proof—that Paul had taken 
into account merely the ten commandments, seeing that he and every one of 
his readers knew that no other commandment of the ten had a promise. 
From the arbitrary presupposition, that merely the Decalogue was taken into 
account, it followed of necessity in the case of other expositors, either that 
they restricted évroAy simply to the commandments of the second table,* in 
connection with which Holzhausen even maintained that évr0A# never denotes 
a commandment in reference to God (see Matt. xxii. 36, 88 ; Mark xii. 28) ; 
or else that they tampered with the numerical sense of rpér7, and made out 
of it a very important, a chief commandment. What a feeble motive would 
thus result ! and xpéry would in fact mean the most important, which, how- 
ever, the fourth commandment is not (Matt. xxii. 38; Rom. xiii. 9, 10 ; 
Gal. v. 14). Further, the proposal of Erasmus, that tpéry év étayyeA. should 
be held to apply to the definite promise of ver. 3, mention of which jirst 
occurs in the fourth commandment, is not worthy of attention,® but errone- 
ous ; because the same promise occurs after the fourth commandment only 
with a general reference to the commandments as a whole (Deut. v. 33, vi. 2), 
as it has also occurred even lefore the fourth commandment in such a gen- 
eral form (Deut. iv. 40) ; and because, besides, érayy. could not but have 
the article. — év érayyed.| is to be closely attached to mpéry, as expressing 
that, wherein this commandment is the first, the point in which the predi- 
cate pertains to it. Comp. Diodor, xiii. 37 : 
“the first in nobility and richness,” Soph. O. R. 33: zparog év ovpdopaic, 
‘“the first inresults.” In point of promise it is the first (ov rq raFe, ‘* not in 
order,” Chrysostom). 

Ver. 3. After Paul has just said: ‘‘ the first commandment with promise,” 
he now adduces the definite promise, on account of which this predicate 
pertains to that commandment, and that according to the LXX. of Ex. xx. 
12, Deut. v. 16, with immaterial variation (LXX. : kai iva paxpoyp. yévy ent 
tT. y.), and with omission of the more precise designation of Palestine, 
which in the LXX. follows after yc. This omission, however, was not 
occasioned by the circumstance that the promise was to bear upon long life 


év dé evyeveia kal TAOUT@ TpOTOC, 


1 According to Bleek, Paul had not at the 
moment the form of the following com- 
mandments of the Decalogue definitely 
before his mind. But with such inadvert- 
ence no one is less to be charged than 
Paul. 

2 Harless. 

3 In opposition to this, Erasmus aptly re- 
marks: ‘‘ Haee distinctio non est fundata 
in s. literis, sed est commentum recentio- 
rum theologorum,” ‘‘This distinction is 
not grounded in the Holy Scriptures, but is 
a fiction of more recent theologians.”? In 


general it is to be observed that, according 
to Philo and Josephus, each of the two 
tables contained jive commandments, not,, 
as Augustine (whom Luther followed) sup- 
posed, the first ¢hvee, and the second seven, 
—and thus two sacred numbers, in which 
case, moreover, there was found in the 
first table a reference to the Trinity. Am- 
brosiaster, Zachariae, Michaelis, the latter 
misconstruing the absence of the article 
before évroAy mpwHTy as favoring his view. 

4 Koppe, Morus, Flatt, Matthies, Meier. 

5 Harless. 


CHAP. VI., 4. 531 


in general,' in which case, indeed, én? r#¢ ye might also have been left out ; 
but Paul could so fully presuppose acquaintance with the complete words 
of the promise, that with the mere iz? r7¢ yj¢ enough was said to preclude 
any misunderstanding which should depart from the original sense : im the 
land, i.e., Palestine. So, namely, in accordance with the sense of the 
original text well known to the readers, éxi ti¢ yc is to be understood, not 
as ‘‘upon earth ;” for the promise is here adduced historically. Hence its 
original sense is not at all to be altered or spiritualized, or to be taken con- 
ditionally, as e.g. was done by Zanchius : if the promise is not fulfilled sim- 
pliciter, ‘‘absolutely,” yet it is fulfilled commutatione in majus, ‘‘by a 
change to what is greater ;” or by Calovius : ‘‘ Promissiones temporales 
cum conditione intelligendae, quantum sc. temporalia illa nobis salutaria fore 
Deus censuerit,” ‘‘ Temporal promises must be understood conditionally, 
viz., so faras God regarded that these temporal matters would be salutary 
to us ;” comp. also Estius, who at the same time remarks? that the land of 
Canaan prefigures the kingdom of heaven (comp. Matt. v. 5), and the long 
life everlasting blessedness. Nor is it to be said, with Bengel, Morus, 
Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Harless, that the earthly blessing is promised 
not to the individual, but to the people. For in the summons ‘‘thow shalt ” 
in the Decalogue, although the latter on the whole (as a whole) is directed 
to the people, the individual is withal addressed, as is evident from the very 
commandments in which the neighbor is mentioned, and as is the view 
underlying all the N. T. citations from the Decalogue-law, Matt. xv. 4, v. 
21, 27; Rom. vil. 7, xiii. 9. —ed oor yévyrar] Comp. Gen. xii. 13 ; Deut. iv. 
40 ; Ecclus. i. 13. A Greek would employ ed rdoyew, eb mpdtre, or the 
like, or even ayafé cou yévytar. — kai ton k.t.A.| is regarded by Winer, p. 258. 
and de Wette,* not as dependent upon iva, but as a direct continuation of 
the discourse. But this expedient is unnecessary, inasmuch as iva with the 
future actually occurs in the case of Paul (see on 1 Cor. ix. 18 ; Gal. ii. 4) ; 
and is, moreover, here out of place, since there is not any direct continua- 
tion of the discourse in those passages of the O. T., the sense of which Paul 
reproduces. At Rev. xxii. 14 also the future and subjunctive are inter- 
changed after iva, as also in classical writers the same variation after é7w¢ is 
well known.* And how aptly do the two modes of construction here suit 
the sense, so that yévyrac expresses the pure becoming realized, and ion 
paxpoxpév. the certain emergence and continued subsistence.° The change is a 
logical climax. 

Ver. 4. The duty of fathers, negative and positive. — kai oi ratépec| and ye 
fathers, so that cai quickly subjoins. Comp. ver. 9. Paul does not address 
the mothers, not because he is thinking of the training of grown-up children, ® 
nor on account of an Oriental depreciation of the mothers,’ in opposition to 


1 Calvin, Koppe, Riickért, Matthies, Bremi, in Schaef. Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 277; 


Schenkel, and many. Ellendt, Zex. Soph. Il. p. 335 f. ; Buttmann, 
2So again typically Olshausen, comp. Neutest. Gramm. p. 184 [E. T. 213}. 
Baumgarten-Crusius. 5 Kiihner, IT. p. 491. 
3 Comp. already Erasmus. ® So quite arbitrarily Olshausen. 


4 See on the erroneous canon Dawesianus, 7 Riickert. 


532 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

which view—even apart from passages like Prov. xiv. 1, xxxi. 10 ff.—the 
whole teaching of the apostle concerning the relation of husband and wife 
in marriage (v. 25 ff.) is decisive ; but because the husband, as the head of 
the wife, has, even in the bringing up of children the rule, and the wives 
join in prosecuting the work of training iroracoaémevar tore Wiow avdpdow 
(v. 22 ff.).— yu mapopyitere] by injustice, harshness, hastiness of temper, 
undue severity, and the like, whereby the children are irritated against the 
fathers ; at Col. iii. 21 there is subjoined as motive wa py abvudow. — éxtpé- 
dere] not asat v. 29, but of the bringing up, and that on its moral side. 
Prov. xxili. 24; 1 Macc. vi. 15,55; Plato, Gorg. p. 471 C ; Polyb. vi. 6. 
2.’ — év raideia kai vovbecia kvpiov] év denotes the regulative element, in which 
the training is to take place.? Hence : in the Lord’s training and correction. 
ratdeia is the general term, the training of children asa whole, and vov@ecia 
is the special one, the seproof aiming at amendment, whether this admoni- 
tion take place by means of words or of actual punishments.* See Gellius, 
vi. 14 ; Kypke, Obss. ad 1 Thess. v. 14. With regard to the form, in place 
of which the better Greek has vovféryoic, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. 
[See Note LVIIL., p. 557.] «vpéov means neither to the Lord,® nor according 
to the doctrine of Christ,® nor worthily of the Lord,’ or the like ; but it is the 
subjective genitive, so that the Lord Himself is conceived as evercising the 
training and reproof, in so far, namely, as Christ by His Spirit impels and 
governs the fathers therein. Riickert is unable to come to a decision, and 
doubts whether Paul himself had a distinct idea before his mind. 

Ver. 5. On vv. 5-9, comp. Col. iii. 22-iv. 1. — Here, too, there is doubt- 
less no approval, but at the same time no disapproval of the existing slavery 
in itself, which—in accordance with the apostolic view of a Christian’s 
position (Gal. iii. 28; 1 Cor. vii. 22; comp. Tit. 1. 9 f.; 1 Pet. ii. 18)— 
like every other outward relation of life, ought not to affect spiritual free- 
dom and Christian unity ; hence at 1 Cor. vii. 21 it is expressly prescribed 
that the slave is to remain in his position,® as, indeed, Paul even sent back 
Onesimus after his conversion to his master, without requiring of the latter 
his manumission."® — roic¢ Kvpiore kata capxa] to those, who in a merely human 


1 See Wyttenbach, ad Plut. de educ. p. 66; 
Lennep, ad Phalar. p. 350 b. 

2 Comp. Polyb. i. 65. 7: 
VOMLOLS K, TOALTLKOLS EbeoLY ExTEApaupevor, “ Of 
those brought up in the training and laws 
and political customs.” 

3 vouteruxot Adyou, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 21. 

4 oi meéev paBdSor 
Quaest. Rom. p. 283. 

5 Luther. 

® Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Menochius, 
Estius, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Rosen- 
miiller, Bisping, and others, including Holz- 
hausen, who, however, takes cup. of God. 

7 Matthies. 

® Comp. Soph. Hlectr. 835: amavra yap cor 
Tawa vousteTipata Keivys SidakTa, Kovdev ék 
cauris A€yets, “For all the admonitions given 


TOV év Tatdelats K. 


Plut. 


voutveTovot k.T.A., 


by you to me are of her teaching; you 
speak nothing of yourself.” 

® Comp. Ignat. ad Polyc. 4 ; Constitt. Apost. 
vel 2s svilsdd)s) ville eae de 

10 The reforming efficacy of the gospel ad- 
dresses itself to knowledge and feeling, 
out of which, and so out of the inner life of 
faith, the alterations of the outward forms 
and relations of life gradually take shape 
with moral necessity by way of conse- 
quence ; as history, too, has shown, which. 
when it has developed itself ina revolution- 
ary manner, has either violently precipi- 
tated, or forsaken, or inverted that course, 
or else in its necessary development has 
encountered such hindrances as disowned 
the influence of this necessary develop- 
ment, and yet could not arrest it. ‘* Civi- 


GHA Palit, sets 533 
relation are your rulers, 7.e., your human masters, whose slaves you are as re- 
gards outward temporal position in life, by way of distinction from the 
higher divine master, Christ ; hence also roic¢ kup. x. o, stands without repe- 
tition of the article, combined into one idea ; comp. on ii. 11. As Paul im- 
mediately after makes mention of the higher master Christ (é¢ 7@ Xpior@), 
it was very natural for him, in view of the twofold and very diverse rela- 
tion of masters which was now present to his mind, to add xara capxa, in 
the use of which any special set purpose cannot be made good. This in op- 
position to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, who find in it a 
consolatory allusion to the decroreia tpdoxarpoc, ‘* temporary mastership ;” in 
opposition to Calvin, who supposes a softening of the relation to be con- 
veyed in this expression, as being one that leaves the spiritual freedom un- 
touched ;* and in opposition to Harless, who finds in the predicate the 
thought that, although in another domain they are free, yet in earthly re- 
lations they had masters. — wera @dBov x. tpdu.] t.e., with that zeal, which is 
ever keenly apprehensive of not doing enough. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; 
2 Cor. vii. 15; Phil. ii. 12. —év arddryte tH¢ Kapd. iu.| State of heart, in 
which the obedience with fear and trembling is to take place ; it is to be no 
hypocritical one, in which we are otherwise minded than we outwardly seem, 
but an upright, inwardly true one, without duplicity of disposition and act. 
Comp. Rom. xii. 8 ; 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11; Jas.i.5. In Philo joined with 
axakia.” Oecumenius well observes : 
GAN ovk é& evvoiac a2Aa Kaxovpywc, ‘for it is possible to serve with fear and 
trembling, and yet not with good will, but malevolently.” —d¢ 76 Xpiord} 
as to Christ, so that you regard your obedience to your masters as rendered 
to Christ (comp. v. 22).° See ver. 6. An allusion to reward * is imported. 
Vv. 6, 7. The év arddryt . . . XpiovH just spoken of is now more pre- 
cisely described. — u7 kar od8aAu. d¢ avOp.| not after an eye-serving manner as 
men-pleasers. The word 60@a2uodovAeia occurs nowhere else than here and 
Col. iii. 3, but its meaning is, from its composition, clear.° It is the service 
which is rendered to the eyes of the master, but in which the aim is merely 
to acquire the semblance of fidelity, inasmuch as one makes himself thus 
noticeable when seen by the master, but is in reality not such, acting, on 
the contrary, otherwise when his back is turned.® — av6purdpecxor] Comp. 
Ps. lili. 5; Psalt. Sal. iv. 8. 10, in Fabric.;7 and see Lobeck,* The men 


évl yap Kai weTa O63ov kK. Tpduov dovAEberv, 


1 Comp. Beza, Zanchius, Grotius, Flatt, 
and others. 


tates malis studiis malisque doctrinis re- 
pente evertuntur,” “States are suddenly 


overthrown by wicked desires and wicked 
doctrines,”’ Cic. Zeg. ii. 15.39. It is not, 
however, to be overlooked that by the 
apostle’s mode of regarding the relation of 
freedom and slavery which he found ewist- 
ing, the slavery introduced by Christians, 
the enslaving of free men, the slave trade, 
etc., are byno means justified—rather are 
these things impossible, where the knowl- 
edge and feeling, that spring from evan- 
gelical faith, are the principles which shape 
the life and the forms assumed by it. 


2 See Loesner, Odss. p. 262. 

3 [@s tumw @cov, Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles, line 104. ] 

4 Theodoret. 

5 Comp. ofdadpodovaos 
Apost. iv. 12. 2. 

® Theodoret : thy ovK €& etAukpivods kapdias 
mpoopepomevnv depametav, aAAA TW OXNMATL KeE- 
xpwopevnv,”’ *‘the service rendered not from 
a pure heart, but adopting the semblance.” 

7 Cod. Pseud. i. p. 929. 

8 Ad Phryn. p. 621. 


in the Constitt. 


534 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


whom such slaves endeavor to please are just their masters, and the fault of 
this behavior lies in the fact that such endeavor is not conditioned by the 
higher point of view of serving Christ and doing the will of God, but has as 
its aim simply Awman approbation. Even of slaves Matt. vi. 24 holds good. 
Comp. Gal. i. 10.—a2/’ dg dovdoe Xpiotod, twosovvtec TO HéAnua Tov Oeod ex 
wuync| but as slaves of Christ, in that ye do the will of God from the heart. 
The contrast lies in dovAo: Xpiorov (comp. ver. 7), and rovodvrec «.7.A. 18° a 
modal definition of this their service, whereupon there follows in ver. 7 
yet a second modal definition. Now to be a slave of Christ and not to do 
the will of God, and that indeed ex animo (from a genuine impulse of the 
soul), would be a contradiction, seeing that God is the Father of Christ, 
has sent Christ, and is the Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3, ili. 23). According 
to Riickert, &¢ dovAo: Xpiorov is subordinate, and rovovytec tr. 0éA. Tr. Oeod Ek 
weyne forms the ‘contrast : ‘‘but doing as Christ’s servants the will of God 
from the heart.” But after avOpwrdpecko:, comp. with ver. 5, this subordina- 
tion of dc dovao: Xp. is altogether arbitrary and opposed to the context. é« 
wvy7e¢ isno doubt attached to what follows by Syriac, Chrysostom, Jerome, 
Bengel, Koppe, Knapp, Lachmann, Harless, de Wette ; but per’ ebvoiac," 
since it expresses the well-meaning disposition, already in fact includes in 
itself the sense of é« yvy7e ;? and it is arbitrary to assume, with Harless, that 
éx w. expresses the relation of the true servant to his service, and er’ evvoiac 
his relation to his master. — é¢ TO Kupiw] 8.¢. dovAebovtec, as to the Lord, the 
true mode of regarding his service as rendered to Christ. —kai ov av6p. | 
Comp. on Gal. 1. 1. 

Ver. 8. Eidérec] Incitement to the mode of service demanded, vv. 5-7 : 
since ye know that whatever good thing each one shall have done, he shall bear off 
this (the good done) from the Lord, whether he be slave or free. —6 éav te 
éxaoroc| éav in the relative clause with the subjunctive instead of dayv,* and ré 
separated from é¢.4—rovro Kou. | Expression of entirely adequate recompense. 
See on 2 Cor. v. 10.— rapa kvpiov] from Christ, at the judgment. — eite 
Jovdoc, eite EAetd.] ederZe TO TapovTe Biw TeTwpiouévyy THY Jovdeiay Kai deoroTEiar, 
peta O& ye Thy évtevdev Exdnuiav ovK éte Sovaeiacg Kat deororeiac, GAN apeTyc Kat 
kaklac écouévyy diadopav, ‘‘ He showed the servitude and mastership obtaining 
in the present life, but after the departure hence, the difference to be no 
longer between servitude and mastership, but between virtue and wicked- 
ness,” Theodoret. It is evident, we may add, from our passage that Paul 
did not think of a ceasing of slavery among Christians before the Parousia, 
—a view which was very naturally connected with the conception of the 
nearness of the latter, which did not admit of his looking forth upon the 
development of centuries. 

Ver. 9. Kat oi xipzoc] like kai of rarépec, ver. 4. —ra aita] the same. The 
master, namely, who treats his servants jer’ evvoiac, does essentially (meas- 


1 Comp. Xen. Oec. xii. 5. 7. 3 Buttmann, newt. Gramm. p. 638 [E. T. 
2 He animi sententia, Col. iii. 23; Mark xii. Wile 
30, 33; Luke x. 27; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 6. 3; 4 Asin Plato, Zegg. ix. p. 864 E: fv av twa 
Xen. Anab. vii. 7.48; Nicarch. epigr. 2; karaBAawy, Lys. p. 160: ds av tis vpas ed 


Theocr. Jdyll. iii. 35. TOL. 


CHAP. VI., 10. 539 


ured by the disposition as the inner essence of the act) the same thing 
towards the slaves as the slave serving er’ eivoiac does towards his master. — 
aviévteg THY areca.| Negative modal definition of the ra aira roveite mpo¢ 
avrobc, especially to be laid to heart in the circumstances by the masters. 
By avcévtec may be denoted either the abating, or the entire leaving off, 
giving up, of the threatening. In the former sense (Wisd. xvi. 24) it has 
‘been taken by Erasmus,’ Vatablus, Zeger ; but certainly the latter sense 
alone? is appropriate to the ra aira roceire ; especially astyv anrecany (with 
the article) denotes not threatening in general, but the threatening, namely, 
‘‘quemadmodum vulgus dominorum solet,” ‘‘as the common crowd of 
masters is wont.” *— eiddrec| specifying a motive, as in ver. 8. Comp. Col. 
iv. 1; Barnab. 19 ; Constitt. ap. vii. 13. Inasmuch, namely, as they know 
that He, who is Lord as well of the slaves as of the masters (kai ait@v Kai 
juav, see the critical remarks), is in heaven (the exalted Christ), and with 
Him is no partiality, so that He gives to the master as such no preference 
over the slave as such : how should they not cease to comport themselves 
with their threatening, as though Christ were not the Lord of both in 
heaven—in heaven, whence at the judgment He will, without partiality, 
alike sustain the injured rights of the slaves, and punish the unchristian 
threatening of the masters, which, instead of operating by moral means, 
only terrifies by rude authority. Comp. Seneca, Thyest. 607 : 


“Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrae 
Jus dedit magnum necis atque vitae 
Ponite inflatos tumidosque vultus. 
Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit, 
Major hoc vobis dominus minatur ; 
Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.”’ 


““Ye, to whom the ruler of sea and earth has entrusted the great right of 
life and death, dismiss your elated and arrogant looks. Whatever an in- 
ferior dreads from you, that a master greater than you threatens. Every 
sovereignty is beneath a sovereignty still more severe.” As to the notion of 
mpocwroanwia, see on Gal. ii. 6. 

Ver. 10.4 After this special table of domestic duties laid down since v. 21, 
now follows, in a full energetic effusion down to ver. 20, a general final ex- 
hortation, winding up the whole paraenetic portion of the Epistle (iv. 1 
ff.). — 70 Aourév] as concerns the rest, namely, what you have still to do in 
addition to what has been hitherto mentioned. Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 
Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 1. — évdvvanotade év xvpio) 
denotes the Christian strengthening, which cannot subsist outside of Christ, 
but only in Him as the life-element of the Christian (Phil. iv. 13). As to 
évdvvapovatar, to become strong, gain strength, which is not a middle,® 
see on Rom. iv. 20. — kat év t¢ Kpdtet tHe iayboc avtov] and by means of the 
might of His strength, which might, namely, must produce the strengthening 


1“* Minus feroces minusque minabundi,”’ 4On vy. 10-17, see Winzer, Leipz. Pfingst- 
“less fierce and less threatening.” programm, 1840, 
2 Comp. Thucyd. iii. 10.2: €x@pav aveévras. 5 ** Corroborate vos,” “ strengthen your- 


3 Erasmus, Paraph?. selves,”’ Piscator. 


536 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


in you. As to the respective notions, see oni. 19. The «ai is not explica- 
tive, but annexes to the element, in which the strengthening is to take 
place, the effective principle of it (2 Cor. xii. 9). ‘‘ Domini virtus nostra 
est,” ‘The Lord’s power is ours,” Bengel. 

Ver. 11. What they are to do in order to become thus strong, in connec- 
tion with which the figurative discourse represents the readers as warriors 
(comp. 2. Cor. x. 4; 1 Thess. v. 8; Rom. vi. 13, 28, xiii. 12; 1 Tim, 1 18,4 
vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7). The more familiar, however, this figure was to the 
apostle, the more freely and independently is it here carried out, although! 
a reminiscence of Isa. lix. 17? underlies it.?—rjv ravordiav tov Ooi] ty 
mavor’. has the emphasis. In the very fact that not merely single pieces of 
the armor,* but the whole armor of God is put on,° resides the capacity of 
resistance to the devil. If tov Ocov had the emphasis,® there must have 
been a contrast to other spiritual weapons (for that no material, actual 
weapons were meant, was self-evident). Rightly, therefore, have most 
expositors kept by the literal meaning of tavorAia, complete suit of armor 
of the heavy-armed soldier, éAiryc ;7 and the assertion® that it here is equiy- 
alent generally to armatura [i.e., the armor, but not the arms],° is arbitrary 
and contrary to linguistic usage ; even in Judith xiv. 3, 2 Mace. iii. 25, the 
notion of the complete equipment is to be adhered to.’ According to 
Polybius, vi. 23, 2 ff., there belong to the Roman ravordia shield, sword, 
greaves, spear, breastplate, helmet. But the circumstance that in the de- 
tailed carrying out of the figure, ver. 13 ff., not add these parts are mentioned 
(the spear is wanting), and withal some portions are brought in (girdle, 
military sandals) which did not belong exclusively to the equipment of the 
heavy-armed soldier, but to military equipment in general, can, least of all 
in the case of Paul, occasion surprise or betray a special set purpose. 
Whether, we may add, the apostle thought of a Jewish or a Roman warrior 
is, doubtless, substantially in itself a matter of indifference, since the kinds 
of armor in the two cases were in general the same;'! but the latter supposi- 
tion is the most natural, inasmuch as the Roman soldiery wielded the power 
in all the provinces, Paul himself was surrounded by Roman soldiery, and 
for most Gentile readers in a non-Jewish province the term zavordia could 


1 Comp. On Tov owrTnpiov, ver. 17. 

2Comp. Wisd. vy. 17 ff., and thereon 
Grimm, Handb. p. 119 f. 

7 According to de Wette, we have here ‘‘a 
playful imitation in detail of 1 Thess. v. 8, 
in which use is made of Isa. lix. 17 (perhaps 
also of Wisd. v. 17 ff.).””. An unwarranted 
judgment, inasmuch as Paul himself could 
here carry out more comprehensively his 
figure elsewhere thrown out in only afew 
outlines, and this he has done worthily and 
without attempt at play. An imitator, on 
the other hand, would here have assigned 
no other signification to the pieces of 
armor mentioned 1 Thess. y. 8 than they 
bear in that place. 

‘Luther : harness. 


5 **Ne quid nobis desit,” ‘* that nothing 
may be lacking to us,”’ Calvin. 

® Harless. 

7 See Herod. i. 60; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 796 
B; Bos, Huwercitt. p. 192; Ottii Spicileg. 
p. 409. 

§ Recently by Harless. 

® Vulgate, which was justly censured by 
Beza. 

10 Of the manner in which Paul himself 
wore and wielded the mavorAta tod @eod, 
his whole labors and each one of his 
Epistles afford the most brilliant evidence ; 
the latter especially in such outbursts as 
Rom. viii. “81 ff; 2 Cory vi. 4dtmieeonae 
Comp. also 2 Cor. x. 4 f. 

11 See Keil, Arch. § 158. 


. 


CHAP. VI., 12. 537 


not but call up the thought of the Roman soldier. Even though Paul had, 
as we must suppose, the recollection of Isa. lix. 17 when he was employing 
such figurative language, this did not prevent his transferring the prophetic 
reminiscence to the conception of a Roman warrior (in opposition to 
Harless). — tov Ocov] genitivus auctoris, ‘genitive of the author:” the 
xavoriia, which comes from God, which God furnishes. Sense without the 
figure : ‘‘ appropriate to yourselves all the means of defence and offence which 
God bestows, in order to be in a position to withstand the machinations of the 
devil.” —orjvac rpéc] stand one’s ground against ; a military expression in 
keeping with the figure.' The same thing is implied by orjva: with the 
dative, Hom. //. xxi. 600. Comp. avrictyte tO diaBorw, Jas. iv. 7. — Tac 
yefod.| See on iv. 14. The plural denotes the concrete manifestations, 
Kithner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 11. Luther aptly renders : the wily assaults.— 
zov diaBdaov| ‘principis hostium, qui ver. 12 ostenduntur,” ‘‘ the chief of 
the enemies indicated in ver. 12,” Bengel. 

Ver. 12. I am warranted in saying zpdc¢ rac pedod. tov dia3ddov ; for we 
have not the wrestling with feeble men, but we have to contend with the 
diabolic powers. This contrast Paul expresses descriptively, and with what 
rhetorical power and swelling fulness! Observe, moreover, that the con- 
flict to which Paul here refers is, according to ver. 13, still futwre ; but it 
is by éorw realized as present. — ov . . . dada] The negation is not non tam, 
or non tantum, ‘‘not so,” or ‘* not so much,” ? but absolute ;* since the con- 
flict on the part of our opponents is one excited and waged not by men, but 
by the devilish powers (though these make use of men too as organs of 
their hostility to the kingdom of God).4 — 7 7427] The article denotes gener- 
ically the kind of conflict, which does not take place in the case of the 
Christians (juiv) ; they have not the wrestling with blood and flesh. Nothing 
else, namely, than lucta, a wrestling, is the meaning of the 7a27,° a word 
occurring only here in the N. T., and evidently one specially chosen by the 
apostle (who elsewhere employs ayév or wayy), With the view of bringing out 
the more strongly in connection with zpdc aiva kai cap. the contrast between 
this less perilous form of contest and that which follows. Now, as the 
notion of the 7427 is not appropriate to the actual conflict of the Christians 
mpoc Tac apydc x.7.2., because it is not in keeping either with the ravoriia in 
general or with its several constituent parts afterwards mentioned ver. 14 ff., 
but serves only to express what the Christian conflict is not; after aA/a 
we have not mentally to supply again 7 7a2%7, but rather the general notion 
of kindred signification 7 udyn, ‘‘ the battle,” or wayeréov, ‘‘one must fight,” ° 


1 See Kypke, IL. p. 301. Comp. Thucyd. git,” ‘‘ Our struggle is not against flesh and 


vy. 104, and Poppo’s note thereon. blood, i.e., against men. They are vessels ; 
2 Cajetanus, Vatablus, Grotius, and another uses them; they are organs, 
others. another touches them.”’ 
3 Winer, p. 439 ff. 5 Hom. 7. xxiii. 635, 700 ff. ; Xen. Wem. iv. 


4 Comp. already Augustine, De verbo 8. 27; Plat. Legg. vii. 795 D; and Ast, ad 
Dom. 8: ‘* Non est nobis colluctatio adver- Legg. p. 378. 
sus carnem et sanguinem, i.e., adversus 6 Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 249 C: mpos ye 
homines, quos videtis saevire innos. Vasa TOUTOV TavTiAdyw waxeTeor, ‘against this one 
sunt, alius utitur; organa sunt, alius tan- must fight with every argument.” 


538 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

as frequently with Greek writers, and in the N. T.? we have to derive from 
a preceding special notion an analogous more general one. What we have 
to sustain, Paul would say, is not the (less perilous) wrestling contest with 
blood and flesh, but we have to contend with the powers and authorities, 
etc. We have accordingly neither to say that with ra‘, Paul only lighted 
in passing on another metaphor (my own former view), nor to suppose (the 
usual opinion) that he employed 74/7 in the general sense of certamen, which, 
however, is only done in isolated poetic passages,® and hence we have the 
less reason to overlook the designed choice of the expression in our passage, 
or to depart from its proper signification. — rpdc¢ aiua kai capKa] 7.€., against 
feeble men, just as Gal. i, 16. Only here and Heb. ii. 144 does aiva stand 
first, which, however, is to be regarded as accidental. Matthies ® under- 
stands the lusts and desires having their root in one’s own sensuous individuality ; 
but this idea must have been expressed by zpo¢ t7Hv capxa alone without aipya 
(Gal. v. 17, 24, a/.), and is, moreover, at variance with the context, since 
the contrast is not with enemies outside of us, but with superhuman superter- 
restrial enemies. — pic tac apxac] This, as well as the following mpdc¢ rac 
é£ovolac, designates the demons, and that according to their classes (analogous 
to the classes of angels),° of which the apyai seem to be of higher rank than 
the é£ovciac (see on i. 21), in which designation there is at the same time 
given the token of their power, and this their power is then in the two 
following clauses (mpd¢ Tod¢ . . . éxovpaviowg) characterized with regard to 
its sphere and to its ethical quality." The exploded views, according to 
which human potentates of different kinds were supposed to be denoted by 
apx., &£ovo. x.7.2., may be seen in Wolf. — pic rove koopoKpar. Tov oxét. TobTov] 
i.e., against the rulers of the world, whose domain is the present darkness. The 
oxétoc Tovro is the evisting, present AQarkness, which, namely, is charac- 
teristic of the aiév oitoc, and from which only believers are delivered, inas- 
much as they have become ¢é¢ év kupiw, téxva Tod dwrdc (iv. 8, 9), being 
translated out of the domain opposed to divine truth into the possession of 
the same, and thus becoming themselves d¢ @worypec év Kécpm (Phil. ii. 15). 
The reading roi cxérove tov aidvoe tobrov is a correct gloss. This pre-Mes- 
sianic darkness is the element adverse to God, in which the sway of the world- 
ruling demons has its essence and operation, and without which their 
dominion would not take place. The devils are called kocwokparopes,” 
because their dominion extends over the whole world, inasmuch as all men 
(the believers alone excepted, ii. 2) are subject to them. Thus Satan is 


1 See Déderlein, de brachyl. in his Reden 
u. Aufs. ii. p. 269 ff. Kriiger, Regist. zu 
Thucyd., p. 318. 

* Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 336 [E. T. 
392]. 

3 Lycophr. 124, 1358. 

4 Lachmann, Tischendorf. 

5 So already Prudentius, Jerome, Caje- 
tanus. : 

8 ** As every kingdom as such is inwardly 
organized, so also is the kingdom of the evil 
spirits,’ Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 347. 


7 Observe how in our passage every word 
rises up as a witness against all attempts to 
make of the devil a mere abstraction, a 
personified cosmic principle, and the like. 
Beyschlag too, Christol. d. N. T, p. 244 f. 
contests, without, however, at the time 
entering into a detailed argument, the per- 
sonality of Satan, as of the world of angels 
and spirits in general, and regards him as 
the vital principle of matter, the self-seek- 
ing of nature, etc. 

8 Comp. Orph. H. viii. 11, xi. 11. 


CHAP. TVIL., We. 539 


Called 6 Aed¢ tov aldvoc TovTov, 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6 dpyev Tov Kéopov TovTov, John xii. 
31, xvi. 11 (comp. John xiv. 30), and of the world itis said that 6 kdécuo¢ 
dog év TO Movypw. keira, 1 John v. 19. The Rabbins, too, adopted the word 
NO IpNIP, and employed it sometimes of kings, while they also say of the 
angel of death that God has made him xocyoxpdtwp.' Later also the Gnos- 
tics called the devil by this name,’ and in the Testamentum Salomonis? the 
demons say to Solomon : jweic éowev Ta Aeyoueva oToryeia, of KOoWOKpaTOpES TOU 
Kéojov TovTov, ‘* we are the so-called principles of this world.” The opinion 
that the compound has been weakened into the general signification rulers * 
is not susceptible of proof, and not to be supported by such Rabbinical 
passages as Bresh. rabba, sect. 58 f., 57. 1: ‘‘ Abrahamus persecutus quatuor, 
‘Abraham having persecuted the four,’ xoooxpatopac,” where koopoxpar. de- 
notes the category of the kings, and this chosen designation has the aim of 
glorifying. See also, in opposition to this alleged weakening, Shir. R. 3, 
4: ‘*The kocpoxparopec are three kings : dominates ab extremitate mundi ad 
extremitatem ejus, Nebucadnezar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar,” ‘‘ ruling from 
one extremity of the world to the other, Nebuchadnezar, Evilmerodach, 
Belsazar.” —po¢ ta mvevuatixa tH¢ Trovnpiac] against the spirit-hosts of wich- 
edness. 'The adjective neuter, singular or plural, is collective, compre- 
hending the beings in question according to their qualitative category as a 
corporate body, like 76 ro/utikév, the burgess-body ; * rd immxdv, the cavalry ;° ra 
Anotpixa, the robbers,’ ra dovia, ta aixyuddwra x.7.2.° Winer, p. 213, correctly 
compares ra daiwéva according to its original adjectival nature. — tH¢ rovypiac | 
genitivus qualitatis, ‘‘of quality,” characterizing the spirit-hosts meant; 
émeloy yap elo Kal oi ayyeAor TvEebuata, tpocéOnKe THE TOoVHpiac, ‘‘for since 
the angels also are spirits, he added rie rovypiac,” Theodoret. Moral wicked- 
ness is their essential quality ; hence the devil is pre-eminently 6 rovypdéc. 
The explanation spirituales nequitias, ‘spiritual wickedness,” ° is impossible, 
since, if ra mvevwatixa expressed the quality substantively and raised it to 
the position of subject,'!? we should have to analyze it as: the spiritual 
nature, or the spiritual part, the spiritual side of wickedness, all of which 
are unsuitable to the context. — év roi¢ érovpavioiwe] Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Photius, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Castalio, Camerarius, Heinsius, Clarius, 
Calovius, Glass, Witsius, Wolf, Morus, Flatt, and others incorrectly render: 
Jor the heavenly possessions, so that it would indicate the object of the con- 
flict, and év would stand for izép or 6:4. Against this view we may urge not’ 
the order of the words, since in fact this element pushed on to theend would 
be brought out with emphasis,’ but certainly the év, which does not mean on 
account of ,"* and ra éxovpavia, which in our Epistle is always meant in a local 


1 See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 790; Buxtorf, 9 Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Clarius, Zeger, 
Lex. Talmud. p. 2006 f.; Wetstein, p. 259. Cornelius 4 Lapide, Wolf, and others. 

2 Tren. i. 1. 10 See Matthiae, p. 994; Kiihner, II. 
3 Fabricius, Pseudepigr. i. p. 1047. p. 122. 

4 Harless. 11 Kiihner, IT. p. 625. 

6 Herod. vii. 103. 12 Where it is rendered so according to the 
6 Rev. ix. 16. approximate sense, the analysis follows 
7 Polyaen. v. 14, 141. another course. See on Matt. vi. 7; John 


8 See Bernhardy, p. 326. xvi. 80; Acts vii. 29; 2 Cor. ix. 4. 


540 | THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

sense (see oni. 3). The view of Matthies is also incorrect, that it denotes 
the place where of the conflict : ‘‘in the kingdom of heaven, in which the 
Christians, as received into that kingdom, are also constantly contending 
against the enemies of God.” a érovpdwa does not signify the kingdom of 
heaven in the sense of Matthies, but the heavenly regions, heaven. Riickert, 
too, is incorrect, who likewise understands the place where of the conflict, 
holding that the contest is to be sustained, as not with flesh and blood, so 
also not upon the same solid ground, but away in the air, and is thus most 
strictly mars iniquus, ‘‘an unequal war.” Apart from the oddness of this 
thought, according to it the contrast would in fact be one not of terrestrial 
and superterrestrial locality, but ef solid ground and baseless air, so that Paul in 
employing év roic érovpav. would have selected a quite inappropriate designa- 
tion, and must have said év7@aépr. Baumgarten-Crusius gives us the choice 
between two incorrect interpretations : the kingdom of spirits, to which the 
kingdom of Christ too.belongs, or the affairs of that kingdom. The correct 
connection is with ta rvevwatixa tic Tovypiac, so that it expresses the seat of 
the evil spirits.! This ‘‘in the heavenly regions” is not, however, in accord- 
ance with the context, to be understood of the abode of God, of Christ, and 
of the angels (iii. 10) ;* but, according to the popular view (comp. Matt. vi. 
26)—in virtue of the flexible character of the conception ‘‘ heaven,” which 
embraces very different degrees of height (compare the conception of the 
seven heavens, 2 Cor. xii. 2)—of the superterrestrial regions, which, although 
still pertaining to the domain of the earth’s atmosphere, yet relatively appear 
as heaven, so that in substance ta érovpavia here denotes the same as 6 agp, 
by which at ii. 2 the domain of the Satanic kingdom is accurately and prop- 
erly designated.* This passage serves as a guide to the import of ours, 
which is wrongly denied by Hahn * on the basis of an erroneous interpreta- 
tion of afp, ii. 2. According to the Rabbins, too, the lower of the seven 
heavens still fall within the region of the atmosphere.® And the reason why 
Paul does not here say év 76 aépu is, that he wishes to bring out as strongly 
as possible the superhuman and superterrestrial nature of the hostile spirits, 
for which purpose to name the air, as the place of their dwelling might be 
less appropriate than to speak of the heavenly regions, an expression which 


1 So Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Beza, 
Calvin, Vatablus, Estius, Grotius, Erasmus 
Schmid, Bengel, Koppe, and many, includ- 
ing Usteri, Meier, Holzhausen, Harless, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek. 

2%n opposition to Hahn, Zheol. d. N. T. 
I. p. 345. 

3 Comp. Philippi, Glawbenst. IIT. p. 309 f. 
Prudentius has already, Hamartigenia, 513 
ff.,in a poetic paraphrase of our passage, 
correctly apprehended the meaning: 


“Sed cum spiritibus tenebrosis nocte 
dieque 

Congredimur, quorum dominatibus humi- 
dus iste 


Et pigris densus nebulis obtemperat aér. 


Scilicet hoe medium coelum inter et infima 
terrae, 
Quod patet ac vacuo nubes suspendit 
hiatu, 
Frena potestatum variarum sustinet ac 
sub 
Principe Belial rectoribus horret iniquis. 
His conluctamur praedonibus, ut sacra 
nobis : 
Oris apostolici testis sententia prodit.” 
Comp. Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 144, — Ac- 
cording to Ascens. Isa. 10, it is the jirma- 
mentum, in which the devil dwells. 
4 Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 336 f. 
5 See Wetstein, ad 2 Cor. xii. 2. 


CHAP Lag, LSs 541 
entirely accords with the lively coloring of his picture.!’ Semler and Storr, 
ignoring this significant bearing and suitableness of the expression, have 
arbitrarily imported a formerly, as though the previous abode of the demons 
had any connection with the matter !_ Schenkel has even imported the irony 
of a paradox, which has the design of making the assumption of divine 
power and glory on the part of the demons ridiculous, as though anything 
of the sort were at all in keeping with the whole profound seriousness of 
our passage, or could have been recognized by any reader whatever! Hof- 
mann finally? has, after a rationalizing fashion, transformed the simple 
direct statement of place into the thought : ‘‘not limited to this or that 
locality of the earthly world, but overruling the same, as the heavens encir- 
cle the earth.” The thought of this turn so easily made, Paul would have 
known how to express—even though he had but said : ra évta ce év Toi¢ éxov- 
paviowc, or more Clearly : ra éyta ravtayow bro Tov-oipavév. The absence of a 
connective article is not at all opposed to our interpretation, since ra mvev- 
patika tHe Tovypiac év Toic Erovpaviorg Might the more be combined into one 
idea, as it was the counterpart of such spirits upon earth. Comp. roic¢ 
mAovotore év TH vov aidvi, 1 Tim. vi. 17, and see onii. 11, iii. 10. [See Note LIX., 
p. 557 seq.|— The zpéc, four times occurring after 424, has rhetorical em- 
phasis, as it needed to be used but once.*— As at ii. 2, so here also, Ginos- 
ticism is found by Baur in expression and conception, because, forsooth, 
Marcion and the Valentinians designated the devil as the kxoooxpdrwp, and 
the demoniac powers as ra mvevyatixad tH¢ movnpiac.4 
method of critical procedure. 

Ver. 13. Ara rovro] because we have to fight against these powers. — 
avaAaBere| the usual word for the taking up of armor.’ The opposite : kara- 
TiS nL. —avtiat7va| namely, the assaults of the demons. —év tj juépa TH 


This is the inverting 


movnpa| The evil day means here, according to the context, neither the 
present life,* nor the day of death,’ nor the day of judgment ;* nor yet, as 
most expositors suppose, in general, the day of conflict and of peril, which the 
devil prepares for us,’ for every day was such, whereas the evil day here man- 
ifestly appears as a peculiar and still future day, for the conflict of which the 
readers were to arm themselves. Hence also not: every day, on which the 


devil has special power ;’? but the emphatic designation 7 juépa 7 rovypa 


1 Entirely uncalled for, therefore, and 3Comp. Dem. 842, 7: mpds maidwv, mpos 


less in keeping with the coloring of the 
passage, would be the alteration already 
discussed in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch, 94, 
whereby, namely, téves had changed the 
émovpaviots into Umovpavio.s—a conject- 
ure approved by Erasmus, Beza, and 
Grundling (in Wolf). Luther, who trans- 
lates ** wnder the heaven,” probably did so, 
not as taking év for t70,—like Alting subse- 
quently (in Wolf),—but by way of explana- 
tion. Already in Homer ovpavos is, as is 
well known, employed of the higher region 
of air (under the firmament). See Nagels- 
bach, Hom. Theol. p. 19. 
2 Schriftbeweis, I. p. 455. 


YUVALK@Y, Tpos T@V OI'TwWY Vly ayadov, Winer, 
p. 874; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 341 
[B. T. 398). 

4 Tren. i. 5. 4, i. 28. 2. 

§ See Kypke and Wetstein. 

6 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, who at the 
same time believed Bpaxiv tov tod moAcnovd 
katpov, ‘‘ the brief time of the battle,”’ to be 
hinted at. 

7 Erasmus Schmid. 

8 Jerome. | 

*So also Rtickert, Harless, Matthies, 
Meier, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Bleek. 

10 Bengel, Zachariae, Olshausen. 


542 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
could suggest to the reader only a single, car’ é£oy4v, ‘pre-eminently,” morally 
evil, day well known to him, and that is the day in which the Satanic power 
(6 Hovnpdc) puts forth its last and greatest outbreak, which last outbreak of 
the anti-Christian kingdom Paul expected shortly before the Parousia.’* 
[See Note LX., p. 558.] Comp. also the éveorae¢ aidv rovnpdc, Gal. i. 4, and 
the remark thereon. —xai dravta katepyacdpuevoe oryvac] This orqvat corre- 
sponds to the preceding avtiorqvar, of which it is the result ; and in the » 
midst, between davriorqvac and orjva, lies dravta Katepyac. : ‘‘ to withstand in 
the evil day, and, after you shall have accomplished all things, to stand.” The 
latter expression is the designation of the victor, who, after the fight is fin- 
ished, is not laid prostrate, or put to flight, but stands.? What is meant by 
amravrta, is necessarily yielded by the connection, namely, everything which 
belongs to the conflict in question, the whole work of the combat in all its parts 
and actions. The eatepydafeo@ar retainsits ordinary signification peragere, 
conficere consummare, ‘* to achieve, accomplish, complete,” * and is not, with 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Camerarius, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Kypke, 
Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, and 
others, to be taken in the sense of debellare, overpower, in which sense it is, 
like the German abthun and niedermachen and the Latin conficere, usual 
enough,‘ but is never so employed by Paul—frequently as the word occurs 
with him—or elsewhere in the N. T., and here would only be required by 
the text, if dtavrac were the reading.® De Wette objects to our interpreta- 
tion as being tame. This, however, it is not, and the less so, because xarep- 
yalecba is the characteristic word fora great and difficult work,® and a@ravra 
also is purposely chosen." To be rejected also is the construction of Erasmus, 
Beza,* Calixtus, Morus, Rosenmiiller, and others : ‘‘ omnibus rebus probe com- 
paratis ad pugnam,” ‘all things being well prepared for the battle.” ° This 
would be rapaockevacdyevo. (1 Cor. xiv. 8), and what a redundant thought 
would thus result, especially since orjvac would then be not at all different 
from dvriorqvac! Lastly, the translation of the Vulgate, which is best at- 
tested critically ; in omnibus perfecti, ‘‘in all things perfect,” is not to be re- 
garded, with Estius, as the sense of our reading, but expresses the reading 
katecpyaouévot, Which is, moreover, to be found in a vitiated form (kxarepyac- 
Hévoc) incodex A. Erasmus conjectured a corruption of the Latin codices. 
Ver. 14. In what manner they accordingly, clad conformably to the preced- 
ing requirement in the ravorAia tov Ocov, are to stand forth. —orfre] is not 
again, like the preceding orjva, the standing of the victor, but the standing 


1 See Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 348 ff. 

2 Comp. Xen. Anab. i. 10. 1. 

3 Comp. van Hengel, ad. Rom. I. p. 205. 

# See Kypke, IT. p. 301. 

5 Koppe felt this, hence he viewed amavra 
as masculine, in accordance with Kypke’s 
proposal! Even in those passages which 
Kypke adduces for catepyageottar mavta, in- 
stead of katepy. ravras, mavra is to be left in 
the neuter sense, and xatepy. is to complete, to 
execute. Freely, but correctly in accord- 
ance with the sense, Luther renders: 


“that ye may perform all well, and keep 
the field.” 

6 Herod. v. 24; Plato, Legg. iii. p. 686 E, 
al. ; and see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 107. 

7 All without exception; see Valckenaer, 
Schol. I. p. 889. 

8 Who proposes this explanation along- 
side of the rendering prostratis, *‘ over- 
thrown,”’ and is inclined to regard it as the 
better one. 

® Bengel. 

10 Comp. Lucifer, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius. 


CHAP. VI., 15. 543 


Sorth of the man ready for the combat. Besides Isa, lix. 17, Wisd. v. 17 ff., 
see also Rabbinical passages for the figurative reference of particular 
weapons to the means of spiritual conflict, in Schoettgen, Horae, p. 791 f. — 
repilwoduevor THY dodvv| having your loins girt about. Comp. Isa, xi. 5. For 
the singular-r. dc¢., comp. Eur, Hlectr. 454 : tayurdpoc xéda [quick of foot], 
and see Elmsley, ad Hur. Med. 1077. The girdle or belt’ is first mentioned by 
the apostle, because to have put on this was the first and most essential re- 
quirement of the warrior standing armed ready for the fight ; to speak of a 
well-equipped warrior without a girdle is a contradictio in adjecto, for it was 
just the girdle which produced the free bearing and movement and the nec- 
essary attitude of the warrior. Hence it is not to be assumed, with Harless, 
that Paul thought of the girdle as an ornament. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 18. — év ady- 
Gcia|instrumental: With truth they are tobe girt about, @.e., truth is to be their 
girdle. Comp. Isa. xi. 5. As for the actual warrior the whole aptus habitus, 
‘¢ prepared state,” for the combat (this is the tertiwm comparationis, ‘* point of 
comparison”), would be wanting in the absence of the girdle ; so also for the 
spiritual warrior, if he is not furnished with truth. From this it is at once 
clear that aA/jfeca is not to be taken objectively, of the gospel, which, on the con- 
trary, is only designated later, ver. 17, by pywa Geov ; but subjectively, of truth 
as inward property, 7.¢., harmony of knowledge with the objectivetruth given in 
the gospel. The explanation sincerity? is, as expressive only of a single virtue, 
according to the context too narrow (compare the following dicavocivy, riati¢ 
k.T.A.), and the notion, moreover, would merge into that of the following 
Otkacoovvy, an Objection which applies likewise to the explanation Christian in- 
tegrity.*— tiv Vapaxa tHe Oikatos.| Genitivus appositionis, ‘‘appositive geni- 
tive.”* As the actual warrior has protected the breast, when he ‘‘ @épyKxa repi 
otnbecow édvvev,” ‘‘ has put the plate about the breast,” so with you dixaocbyvy 
is to be that, which renders your breast (heart and will) inaccessible to the 
hostile influences of the demons. dcxacoctiyvy is here Christian moral rec- 
titude (Rom. vi. 13), inasmuch as, justified through faith, we are dead to sin 
and liveév kavvétyre CwH ¢(Rom. vi. 4). Harless and Winzer understand 
the righteousness by faith, by which, however, inasmuch as this righteousness is 
given with faith, the @upedc r7¢ rictewc, Subsequently singled out quite spe- 
cially, isanticipated. [See Note LXI., p. 558.] As previously the intellect- 
ual rectitude of the Christian was denoted by aA76eva, so here his moral rec- 
titude by dicaocivn. 

Ver. 15. And the service which the irodjuara, the military sandals,* ren- 
der to the actual warrior, enabling him, namely, to advance against the 
enemy with agile and sure step, the érocuacia tov evayyedhiov tie eiphyyc is to 
render to you spiritual warriors, inasmuch as by virtue of it you march 
briskly and firmly against the Satanic powers.—érodyoduevor k.7.A.] having 


1 Gwortyp, covering the loins and the part 3 Morus, Winzer. 
of the body below the breastplate, also 4 Comp. 1 Thess. v. 8; Wisd. v. 19; Soph. 
called Gan, Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIIL. p..177, — O. BR. 170: ppovridos €yxos. 
not to be confounded with gana, the lower 5 Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 14 [Josephus, B. J, vi. 
part of the coat of mail. 1. 8] (caligae, compare the Heb. PND, Isa. 


2 Calvin, Boyd, Estius, Olshausen, Bis- ix. 4; see Gesenius, Thes. II. 932; Bynaeus, 
ping, and others. de calc. Hebr. p. 83 f. 


544 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

your feet underbound with the preparedness of the gospel of peace. év does not 
stand for cic,’ but is instrumental, as in ver. 14, so that the éro.uacia is con- 
ceived of as the foot-clothing itself. Beza well remarks: ‘‘non enim vult nos 
docere dumtaxat, oportere nos esse calceatos, sed calceos etiam, ut ita 
loquar, nobis praebet,” ‘‘ For he does not wish only to teach us that we 
ought to be shod, but, so to say, offers us the very sandals.” — érotpacia® 
is preparedness,* whether it be an outward standing ready,* or an inward. 
being ready, promptitudo animi, ‘‘readiness of mind.” So LXX. Ps. x. 17, 
comp. éroiuy 7 kapdia, Ps. lvil. 7, exil. 7, where the LXX. indicate the notion 
of a prepared mind, which is expressed in Hebrew by forms of the stem }}3, 
by the use of érowacia and éroipoc, following the signification of making 
ready, adjusting, which {}2 has in all the conjugations of it which occur 
(Deut. xxxii. 6; Ps. vill. 4; Gen. xliii. 16 ; Prov. xix. 29);) Neleavaieet 
Ps. lix. 5), alongside of the signification of laying down, establishing, from 
which the former one is derived. Hence the LXX. translate {139 too ® by 
éroyuacia ; not as though in their usage éroiwacia signified foundation, which 
it never does, but because they wnderstood })3') in the sense of éroyacia. So 
Hizra ii. 68, where the house of God is to be erected upon ry éroumaciav 
avtov, upon the preparation thereof, i.e., upon the foundation already lying 
prepared. So also Ezra iii. 3; Ps. Ixxxix. 15 ; Dan. xi. 20, 21.. Wrongly, 
therefore, have Wolf (after the older expositors), Bengel, Zachariae, Morus, 
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Bleek, and others, explained ¢roiuasia by fun- 
damentum or jirmitas, ‘‘ foundation or firmness ;” so that Paul is supposed 
to indicate ‘‘vel constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem 
adeo ipsam, certam illam quidem et fundamento, cui insistere possis, simi- 
lem,” ‘‘ either constancy in keeping the religion of Christ, or that very relig- 
ion itself, like a foundation whereon you can stand,” Koppe. This is not 
only contrary to linguistic usage (see above), but also opposed to the con- 
text, since the notion does not suit the figurative conception of putting on 
shoes (iodyoau.). It is the readiness, the ready mind ; not, however, for 
the proclamation of the gospel,* —since, in fact, Paul is speaking to fellow- 
Christians, not to fellow-teachers,—but the promptitudo, ‘‘ readiness ’—and 
that for the conflict in question—which the gospel bestows, which is produced 
by means of it. So Oecumenius (who has this interpretation alongside the 
former one), Calvin, Castalio, and others, including Matthies, Holzhausen, 
Harless, Olshausen, Winzer, de Wette, Schenkel. The explanation of 
Schleusner : ‘‘instar pedum armaturae sit vobis doctrina salutaris. . . quae 


1 Vulgate, Erasmus, Vatablus, and two thousand cavalry of that of mine pres- 


others. 

2 With classical writers érouudrys, Dem. 
1268, 7, but see also Hippocr. p. 24, 47. 

* In Wisd. xiii. 12 it means making ready 


(food). The Vulg. translates it in our pas- 
sage in praeparatione (comp. <Artemid. 
iin Da): 


4 Josephus, Ant. x. 1.2: SuaxAlous &x THs 
ELOl Tapovans immous eis ETOLLaciay Yuiy mapeE- 
Xetv ETousos eiur, “Tam ready to afford you 


ent.” 

5 Foundation, as Ps, 1xxxix. 15. 

® So, in some instances with a reference 
to Isa. lii. 7, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Pe- 
lagius, Erasmus, Luther, Vatablus, Clarius, 
Cornelius & Lapide, Erasmus Schmid, Es- 
tius, Grotius, Calovius, Calixtus, Michaelis, 
and others, including Riickert, Meier, 
Baumgarten-Crusius. 


CHAP. VI., 16; d45 
vobis semper in promptu sit,” ‘‘Let the saving doctrine be to you like an 
equipment of the feet which may always be in readiness,” is to be rejected on 
account of ver. 17, according to which the gospel is the sword. — rie eiphvnc] 
Subject-matter of the gospel, and that purposely designated in harmony with 
the context. For the gospel proclaims peace kar’ éZoyqv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” .e., 
the inner peace with God, Rom. v. 1, Phil. i. 20, and produces precisely there- 
by consecration of courageous readiness for the conflict in question (Rom. viii. 
31, 38, 39). At variance with the context, Erasmus, Paraphr., makes it : 
*‘evangelium, quod non tumultu, sed tolerantia tranquillitateque defenditur,” 
‘the gospel which is defended, not by tumult, but by tolerance and tran- 
quillity ;” and Michaelis holds: the peace between Jews and Gentiles is 
meant. If, however, it is taken, with Koppe and Morus, in accordance 
with the more extended sense of 09% (comp. Rom. x. 15), the salvation- 
bringing (rather : the salvation-proclaiming, comp. i. 
done without any justification from the text, and to the injury of the special 
coloring of the several particulars. Winzer, finally, contrary to the unity 
of the sense, combines peace with God and everlasting salvation. 

Ver. 16. Eri zaow] not: before all things,’ but : in addition to all.2 By 
the three pieces previously mentioned, vv. 14, 15 (which were all made fast 
to the body), the body is clothed upon for warlike purposes ; what is still 
wanting, and must be added to all that has preceded, is shield, helmet, 
sword, vv. 16, 17. —rdv Yupedv] Yupedc, Which Polybius mentions and more 
fully describes as the first part of the Roman ravorAia (vi. 23. 2 ff.), is, with 
Homer, that which is placed in front of the doorway and blocks the entrance,? 
and only with later writers * is the shield,° and that the sewtwm, the large 
shield, 4 feet in length and 2} feet in width, as distinguished from the 
small round buckler, elypeus,aoric.© Paul does not say aonic, because he is rep- 
resenting the Christian warrior as heavy-armed, — ri¢ riczewe | Genitivus appo- 
sitionis, ‘‘ appositive genitive,” as rH dixaioobvyc, ver. 14. The faith, however, 
is not the faith of miracles,” but the jides salvifica, ‘‘saving faith” (ii. 8), by 
which the Christian is assured of the forgiveness of his sins on account of the 
sacrificial death of Christ, and at the same time is assured of the Messianic 
blessedness (i. 7, ii. 5 ff., iii. 12), has the Holy Spirit as the earnest of ever- 
lasting life (i. 13, 14), and consequently has Christ in the heart (ii. 17; Gal. 
li. 20), and as child of God (i. 5; Rom. viii. 15 f.; Gal. iv. 5 ff.) under the 
government of grace (Rom. vili. 14) belongs so wholly to God (Rom. vi. 
11 ; comp. 1 John iii. 7 ff.), that he cannot be separated by anything from 
the love of God towards him (Rom. viii. 38) ; and on his part is consecrated 
only to the service of God (i. 4 ; Rom. vii. 4, 6, vi. 22), and hence through 
God carries off the victory over the power of Satan opposed to God (Rom. 


13) gospel, this is 


1 Luther, Castalio, Michaclis, and others. 

2 Comp. Luke iii. 20; Polyb. vi. 28. 12: émi 
S€ mage ToVTOLs TpogETLKOTMODYTAL TTEpPiVH 
atebdavw, ‘In addition to all these, they are 
adorned with a feather garland.” See 
Wetstein, ad Luc. xvi. 26; Matthiae, p. 1371. 

3 Od. ix. 240, 313. 

4 Plutarch, Strabo, ete. 

30 


5 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 336, and Wet- 
stein, ad loc. 

® See Lipsius, de milit. Rom. iii. 2, ed. 
Plant. 1614, p. 106 ff.; Alberti and Kypke 
in loc. ; Ottii Spiciley. p. 409 f. Comp. the 
Homeric cakos and the Hebrew 3¥. 

7 Chrysostom. 


d46 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

xvi. 20; 2 Thess. iii. 8). Only wavering faith is accessible to the devil (2 
Cor. xi. 3; comp. 1 Pet. v. 8, 9). — év @] by means of which, i.e., by holding 
it in front. — dvvgocode] for the conflict in question is future. See on vv. 
12, 13. — rod rovypov] of the morally evil one kav’ éfoyjv, ‘* pre-eminently,” 
i.e., the devil; 2 Thess. iii. 3; Matt. v. 87, vi. 13, xiii. 19, 38 ; John xvii. 
15; 1 John v. 19. —7a! rervpwpéva] those set on fire, the burning ones.* The 
malleoli are meant, i.¢., arrows tipped with inflammable material (tow, pitch) 
and shot off after being kindled, which, known also to the Hebrews (see 
expositors on Ps. vii. 14), were in use among the Greeks and Romans, and 
are to be distinguished from the javelins of the same kind.* For the de- 
scription of the malleoli, see Ammian. Marcell. xxiii. 4 ; and see, in gen- 
eral, Lydius, Agonist. p. 45, de re mil. p. 119, 315 ; Spanheim, ad Julian. 
Orat. p. 198. Poisoned arrows * are not meant,” since these ave not on fire 
(rexvpoyéva), but excite a fire (inflammation). The aim of the predicate, we 
may add, is to present in strong colors the hostile and destructive character 
ef the Satanic assaults ; but more special explanations of its import, such 
as of the burning desires excited by Satan,° or of doubts and of the anguish of 
despair’ are inappropriate ; and the more so, inasmuch as in the whole con- 
text the apostle is speaking of diabolic assaults in general, not of particular 
kinds thereof. — cféca:] The shields of the Greeks and Romans were as a 
rule of wood, with a thick coating of leather.* So Paul conceives of faith 
under the figure of such a shield, which not only prevents the missiles from 
injuring the warrior, but also by reason of its coating brings it about that 
these do not set on fire the wood of the shield, but must needs be themselves 
extinguished, so that thus the warrior, by holding the shield in front of him, 
can quench the fiery arrows. 

Ver. 17. We have to prefix not a full stop, as is done by Lachmann and 
Tischendorf, seeing that ver. 18 has reference to the whole from orjre on- 
ward, vv. 14-17 (see on ver. 18), but only a comma. Paul, namely, passes over 
from the participial construction into that of the verbum sinitwm, ‘*finite verb,” 
as at i. 20,—a change to which he was drawn by the increasing vivacity of 
his figurative conception, which, moreover, induced him now to prefix the 
object (xepixegadaiay and payatpay, ver. 17). —In natural sequence he brings 
forward jist the taking of the helmet, and then that of the sword ; because 
the left hand already grasps the shield (ver. 16), and thus after the taking 
of the sword there is no hand free. —rov cwrnpiov] again genitive ef apposi- 
tion. The salvation, i.e., the salvation kar’ éFoyxAv, ‘* pre-eminently,” the sal- 
vation of the Messianic kingdom, of which the Christian is partaker (before the 


1 The article implies that Satan discharges 
other avrows besides burning ones. See 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. iv. 6. 1. 

2 Comp. Apollod. Bibl. ii. 5.2; Leo, Tact. 
Xv. 27, ed. Heyn.; also mvpopor diarot in 
Thuycd. ii. 75. 4; BédAn mupdopa, Diod. xx. 
96; Zosim. Hist. p. 256, 2. 

3 Falaricae, see Vegetius, iv. 8. 

4 Ods 15 2604.5. Mire eden: ix ine Ps: 
XxXxviii. 3; Jobyi. 4; and see Lyd. de re mit. 


p. 118. 

5 As supposed by Boyd, Hammond, Bo- 
chart. 

6 Chrysostom, Theophylact ; comp. Oecu- 
menius. D 

7 Boyd. 

8 Hom. Zl. v. 452; Herod. vii. 91; Polyb. 
lc. Plin. viii. 89; and see, in general, 
Lipsius, @e milit. Rom. iii. 2, p. 109 ff. 


. 


CHAP. VI., 17. 547 
Parousia, as an ideal possession, Rom. viii. 24'), serves, appropriated in his 
consciousness, to protect him against the assaults of the devil aimed at his 
everlasting life, like the helmet, which defends the warrior from deadly 
wounds onthe head.? For the use of cwr4#pcrov as a substantive, comp. 
Luke ii. 20, iii. 6 ; Acts xxviii. 28 ; frequently met with in the classics and 
the LXX.;sce Schleusner, Thes. sub voce. Neither Christ Himself * nor the gos- 
pel‘ is meant. It is true that the word cwrjpiov is not elsewhere used by 
Paul ; but here it is explained as a reminiscence from the LXX. Isa. lix. 17. 
— déEache] receive, namely, from God (ver. 13), who offers you this helmet.— 
THY waxatpav Tov Tvebuatoc] The genitive cannot here be appositional,® since 
there follows the explanation 6 éo71 jjya Ocov, from which it is clear that the 
sword of the Spirit is not the Spirit itself, but something distinct there- 
from, namely, the word of God (comp. Heb. iv. 12).° If Paul had wished to 
designate the Spirit itself as sword, the explanation 6 éor: pjua Ocot would 
have deen inappropriate, inasmuch as the word of God and the Holy Spirit 
are different things ;’ in Romans, too, zvevua means nothing else than the 

‘Holy Spirit. The pd yarpa tov rveiy. is the sword, which the Holy Spirit fur- 
nishes (comp. tiv TavorAiay Tov Ocov, VV. 11, 13), and this sword is the word 
of God, the gospel (comp. on v. 26), the contents of which the Spirit brings 
vividly to the consciousness of the Christian, in order that he may defend 
himself by the divine power of the gospel (Rom. i. 16) against the assaults 
of the diabolic powers, and may vanquish them, as the warrior wards off 
and vanquishes the enemy with the sword. Limitations of the pijua Ocod, 
either to the commandments of God,* or to the divine threatenings against the 
enemies of the Christians,® are as arbitrary and inappropriate as is the ex- 
plaining tov tvetuarog of the human spirit, or by zvevparixgv, which, accord- 
ing to Grotius, is to serve ‘‘ molliendis translationibus,” ‘‘for rendering the 
transfers less abrupt,” but yet would have again to be explained by row 
mvevuaroc in the sense of the Holy Spirit. — 6 éo7] applying, according to 
the ordinary attraction, to rv wayacpav. Olshausen, in accordance with his 
erroneous conception of rov zvebiuatoc, refers it to the latter. So already 
Basil, contr. Hunom. 11, who proves from our passage that not only the 
Son, but also the Spirit is the Word ! 


Remark on vv. 14-17.—In the exposition of these several portions of the ar- 
mor of the spiritual warrior, it is just as unwarrantable to press the compari- 


1 Hence Paul in 1 Thess. v. 8 says: mepuxe- 
paratav €Awida owrtypias, Which, however, 
does not justify in our passage the expla- 
nation hope of salvation, given to it by Caje- 
tanus, Calvin, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius, 
Grotius, Calixtus, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, 
Meier, Winzer, and others. 

2 As to the Roman helmets, see Lipsius, de 
milit. Rom. iii. 5, p. 122 ff. 

3’ Theodoret, Bengel. 

4 Holzhausen. 

5In opposition to ‘/Harless, Olshausen, 
Schenkel, and older expositors. 

® Comp. also Bleek. 


7Itis true Olshausen observes that the 
Word as to its inner essence is Spirit, as the 
efflux of God the Spirit. But that is a gaid 
pro quo ; for the word would not here be 
termed Spirit (as John vi. 63), but the Spirit, 
i.€., the Holy Spirit Himself. A like quid pro 
quo is made by Schenkel, namely, that the 
word of God is the most adequate expression 
of the absolute Spirit (John iv. 24). 
§ Flatt. 
®° Koppe. 
10 Morus, Rosenmiiller. 
11 Grotius, Michaelis, and others; comp. 
already Chrysostom and Erasmus. 


548 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


sons, by pursuing the points of comparison into such particular details as it may 
please us to select from the various uses of the pieces of armor in question 
(an error which several of the older expositors committed),—whereby free room 
is given for the play of subjectivity, and the vivid objective delineation of the 
apostle’s figure is arbitrarily broken up,—as it is, on the other hand, arbitrary 
to disregard the differences in the figures derived from military equipment, 
and to say : *‘ universa potius armorum notio tenenda est,” ‘‘rather the entire 
notion of arms must be retained ” (Winzer, l.c. p. 14; comp. Morus, Rosen- 
miiller, and others). The esential characteristic—the specific main point— 
whereby the pieces named are distinguished from each other in respect of that 
for which they serve, must be furnished by the nature of the comparison with 
the respective means of spiritual conflict ; so that Paul must have been con- 
scious why he here designated, e.g., d:xacocvvy as the breastplate, faith as the 
shield, ete., namely, inasmuch as he looked at the former really from the point 
of view of the essential destination of the breastplate, the latter from that of 
the essential destination of the shield, etc. Otherwise his representation would 
be a play of figures, of which the separate images, so different in themselves, 
would have no basis in the conceplion of what is represented. To this there is 
nothing opposed in the fact that here d:cacoovvy appears as the breastplate, 
while at 1 Thess. v. 8 it is faith and love which so appear ; for the figurative 
mode of regarding the subject can by no means, with a mind so many-sided, 
rich, and versatile as that of St. Paul, be so stereotyped that the very same 
thing which he has here viewed under the figure of the protecting breastplate, 
must have presented itself another time under this very same figure. Thus, 
e.g., there appears to him, as an offering well-pleasing to God, at one time 
Christ (Eph. v. 2), at another the gifts of love received (Phil. iv. 18), at another 
time the bodies of Christians (Rom. xii. 1) ; under the figure of the seed-corn, 
at one time the body becoming buried (1 Cor. xy. 36 f.), at another time the 
moral conduct (Gal. vi. 7) ; under the figure of the leaven, once moral corrup- 
tion (1 Cor, v. 6), another time doctrinal corruption (Gal. v. 9) ; under the fig- 
ure of clothing which is put on, once the new man (iv. 24), another time Christ 
(Gal. iii. 27), at another time the body (2 Cor. v. 3), and other similar in- 
stances. 


Ver. 18. After Paul has, vv. 14-17, placed before his readers in what 
armor they are to stand forth, he shows yet further how this standing 
ready for the combat must be combined with prayer: ‘‘ with prayer and 
entreaty of every kind, praying at each moment in virtue of the Spirit.” 
These are two parallel specifications of mode, whereof the second more pre- 
cisely defines the first, and which stand in grammatical and logical connec- 
tion with or7re obv, ver. 14 ; not with the intervening désaofe, ver. 17, which 
rather is itself subordinate to the arjre, and only by a deviation from the 
construction has come to be expressed in the imperative instead of the par- 
ticiple, wherefore orjre oiv remains the precept ruling the whole descrip- 
tion, vv. 14-17. Should we join them to déZao6re, neither raon¢ nor év wavti 
xaip@ would be appropriate to this momentary act ; for we would, in fact, 
be told not how the sword of the Spirit should be handled,’ but how it 


1 Olshausen ; comp. Harless: ‘the temper in which they are fo wield such weapons.’’ 


GHAP Vi, Le: o49 


should be taken! An imperative signification * the participle has not. — dua 
xaone mpocevy. Kk. dexo.] is to be taken by itself, not to be joined to the fol- 
lowing rpocevyou.,? since otherwise a tautological redundancy of expression 
would arise (not to be confounded with the mode of expression zpocevyi 
mpocevyecbar, Jas. v. 17),—arbitrarily conjectured by de Wette to have 
been occasioned by Phil. iv. 6,—and because it is an impossibility to pray 
dua TaOnNE Tpocevy_c év TavTi Kaipo.* dca here denotes ‘‘ conditionem, in 
qua locatus aliquid vel facias vel patiaris,” ‘‘a condition, fixed in which 
you either do, or suffer something,” * 7.e., while ye employ every kind of prayer 
and entreaty, omit no sort of prayer and entreaty. Those who join with 
mpocevyou. take dia as by means of. But see above. The expression raa7c¢ 
mpooevy. receives its elucidation from the following év ravi xaip@, Inasmuch 
as to different circumstances of the time different kinds of prayer, as 
respects contents and form, are appropriate. tpocevyH and dénace are 
distinguished not so, that the former applies to the obtaining of a blessing, 
the latter to the averting of an evil’—a meaning which, quite without proof 
from the linguistic usage of the single words, is derived merely from the 
combination of the two ; but rather as prayer and entreaty, of which only 
the former has the sacred character and may be of anytenor ; the latter, on 
the other hand, may be addressed not merely to God, as here, but also to men, 
and is supplicatory in tenor.*—év rari xaipo| at every season, not merely 
under special circumstances and on particular occasions. Comp. Luke xxi. 
36. It is the advateitrwe rpocetyecba, 1 Thess. v. 17, ii. 13, 1. 38; Rom. i. 9. 
— év rvebmate| understood of the human spirit (Rom. vill. 10), would denote 
the heartfelt prayer in contrast to the mere utterance of the lips.” But this 
contrast was so obvious of itself, that such a description of prayer would be 
quite out of place in the flow of the passage before us, accumulating, as it 
does, simply elements that are specifically Christian. Je Holy Spirit is 
meant (ver. 17), by virtue of whom the Christian is to pray. See Rom. 
vili. 15, 26 ; Gal. iv. 6. [See Note LXIL., p. 558.] — kai eic avt6 aypurv. k.7.A. | 
attaches to the general zpocevyduevon év wr. x. év wv. something special, 
namely, dntercession, and that for all Christians, and in particular for the 
apostle himself : and in that ye on this behalf are watchful in every kind of 
perseverance and entreaty for all saints and for me, ete. According to de 
Wette, sic av7d apy. is to be held as still belonging to the general exhorta- 
tion to prayer, and év 7. rpooxapr. x.7.A2. to be the addition of a special ele- 











ment, like év ei yap., Col. iv. 2. But how idly would x. ei¢ ait ayp. then be 
used, seeing that the continual praying is already before so urgently ex- 
pressed ! Moreover, xai betrays the transition to a new element of prayer. 
—eic airé| in reference thereto, on behalf of this, namely, of the zpocebyeotar 


1 Bleek. 4 Fritzsche, ad@ Rom. I. p. 188; Winer, 
2 So usually, as also by Riickert, Matthies, p. 339. 
Harless, Bleek ; not Meier and Baumgar- 5 Grotius and many. 
ten-Crusius. 6 See Harless on the passage, and 
3 The case would be otherwise, and this Fritzsche, ad Rom. U1. p. 372 f. 
impossibility would not exist, if it were 7 Castalio, Zanchius, Erasmus Schmid, 
said: dca maons mpogevyns x. Seno, Kal ev 7. Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and 


Kap, others. 


550 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


év ravtl xaip év rvevpate just required. By airé, namely, is denoted that 
which is just being spoken of, and it is distinguished from airé rovro (the 
Recepta) only in this respect, that the latter (comp. on Rom. ix. 17) desig- 
nates the subject in question at the same time demonstratively, and so still 
more definitely.’ According to Holzhausen,’ it has reference to iva ox dof. 
But in that case eic tovro must have been written ; and, moreover, epi 
révtov Tov dyiov Would be from a logical point of view opposed to it. — éy 
don TpockapT. Kk. dejoet TEpi ~. T. dy.| denotes the domain, wherein, etc. On 
behalf of the required zpocetyeoba: they are to be watchful in every kind of 
perseverance and entreaty for alt saints. The xpockaprépyoic is, according to 
the context (and comp. Col. iv. 2), the perseverance in prayer, so that év r. 
rpoox. corresponds to the dia rac. spocev xi at the beginning of the verse, 
and then with xai (év racy) defoe:, as there, the entreaty attaches itself, but 
now with the more precise definition : repi r4.Twv tov dylwv, Which hence 
belongs not to zpooxapr., but only to dejoe, as, indeed, accordingly the lat- 
ter may not be amalgamated with zpooxapr. into a év did dvoiv. According 
to Riickert, év wdoy rpookaor. x. de#oec is added, in order to be able to annex 
repi ravt. T. dy. But in that case could not Paul have written merely eic 
avr aypuTv. epi wav7. Tt. dy., and that without risk of being misunderstood ? 
No, the év rdoy mpock. x. defo., in itself not essential, gives to his discourse 
the emphasis of earnestness and solemnity.? — don] as previously done. 
Ver. 19. Kai izép éuov] cai: and in particular. The special point 
which, in connection with the intercession embracing all Christians, he 
would have to be made matter of supplication for himself, is stated in what 
follows. &t7zép expresses, as previously the epi in current use, the sense in 
commodum, ‘‘for the advantage of ; ” ° and only the form of sensuous pereep- 
tion, which underlies the two prepositions, is different, as in the case of the 
Germ. iiber and um; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18. It is wrongly assumed by 
Harless that only i ép expresses -in itself the relation of care for, and not 
xepi. The notion of the latter—that of encircling—in fact sensuously em- 
bodies such care ; hence with classical writers too, especially with Demos- 
thenes, repi and iép are interchanged without any difference of sense, e.g.° 
— iva por Jo) x.t.A.| Aimof the kai brép ~Euod, and consequently contenis 
of the intercession for the apostle (comp. on iii. 16) : in order that utterance 
may be given to me on the opening of my mouth, i.e., that there may not be 
withheld from me by God, but may on the contrary be conferred, that 
which I ought to speak when I open my mouth. That Paul means the 
speaking with a view to the proclamation of the gospel, is from the context (see 
év Tappyo. yvop. k.T.A.) clear. The emphasis, however, is upon dof 4, to 
which, in the sequel, év rappyoia significantly corresponds ; for this freedom 


1 See on ver. 22; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 6 Phil. ii. p. 74, 35: wh wept Tor dixatov 
iii. 10. 14; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. ii. p. 362 D. pnd’ barép tov ¢£w mpayparwr elvar THv Bov- 
2 Comp. Koppe. Ajv, aAN Vrép tovév TH xWpa, 10. 16: ov weEpe 
3Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. dcéns 005’ dmép wéepovs Xwpas ToAemovor, Xen. 
XXXViii. f. Mem.i.1.17:07ép tovtTwv wept avtov mapay- 
4 See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 11, 713. vevar, Thucyd, vi. 78. 1: vrép ye THs Ems Kev- 


5 See Schaefer, App. ad Dem. I. p. 150; Svveverv, evOvpynditwé ov wept THs EAs MAAAOV. 
Buttmann, Jnd. ad Mid. p. 158. 


CHAP. Vis, 19: dol 
of speech is the consequence wished for by Paul from that bestowal. Comp. 
Luke xxi. 15. As to avoiyerv td oréma, which in itself represents 
nothing else than the opening of the mouth to speak, comp. on Matt. v. 2 ; 
2 Cor. vi. 11 ; on the substantive a@vocfcc, comp. Thuc. iv. 67. 3. The 
expression is graphic, and has here something of a pathetic nature, without, 
however, containing a qualitative feature of the discourse itself, not even the 
character of wnpremeditated utterance,’ which would have been expressed by 
év avTh TH avoife: Tov o7., OY in asimilar significant way. This at the same 
time in opposition to Calvin, Boyd, Zanchius, Michaelis, Zachariae, and 
others, including Koppe, Riickert, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
de Wette, Bleek, Schenkel, who explain: wnreservedly, frankly, which 
would have to be attached not to what follows (see below), but closely to 
26yoc, and thereby, again, the év rappycia yrwp. would be unwarrantably antic- 
ipated. Following Bullinger, Calovius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others,’ 
Harless and Olshausen understand the dvorEve tot oréuaroc as the act of God,* 
holding it to denote : f 
bound state of the tongue. 
ance may be given unto me through my mouth being opened.” 


the bestowed capacity of speaking in contrast to an earlier 
Paul would thus have said : ‘‘in order that utter- 
But what 
needless diffuseness of expression, since do37 Adyoc and avoeic Tov ordmarog 
-would be just the same thing! 
to what follows ; in which case Kypke regards év zappyoia as epexegesis of 
avotéet T. of. ., and Koppe, following Grotius,‘ refers év zapp. to the outward 
frecdom : ‘‘non vinculis constrictus in carcere latens,” ‘‘not bound by 
chains, concealed in prison.” The latter explanation is logically erroneous, 
since, thus understood, év zappyo. would be something quite other than the 
avoieic Tov otéuatoc, and thus could not be added by way of apposition, with- 
out «ai ; and linguistically erroneous, since zappycia never denotes outward 
freedom, and here especially its signification of boldness is rendered clear by 
the rappyoidowua of ver. 20.° 


Kypke and Koppe attach év avoigerrod or. yu. 


In opposition to Kypke, it may be urged 
that an addition of so purely exegetical a character, as év rapp. would be to 
év avolg. tT. ord. u., WOuld not be in keeping with the elevated style of the 
discourse, which is not couched in anything like a didactic tone. Kdster,° 
with whom, in the main, Bleek agrees, attaches év dvoig. tr. oréu. wu. to what 
follows, and takes dofj Aéyoc in the well-known classical sense : to allow one 
to come to speech, to let him speak ;" so that Paul is supposed to say : ‘‘ that 


1 Oecumenius: €v ait@ T@ avot~ar Oo Adyos 
mpoyet, “* in the very opening, the word went 
forth.” 

2 Grotius also regards the avovéts tod ard- 
patos as the act of God: ‘‘sic Deus labia 
aperire dicitur, ubi materiam suppeditat 
sibi gratias agendi, ‘Thus God is said to 
open the lips when he supplies the matter 
for thanksgiving,’ Ps. li. 15,’ yet makes out 
of it, after the Rabbinical 7D pnns (see 
Capell. Spicileg. p. 112; Buxtorf, Lea. Tal. 
p. 1872), occastone (loquendi) data, ‘* the op- 
portunity to speak being given.’’ But the 
sense, ‘opportunity io speak,” could only 


so be brought out in the event of the words 
running thus: tva jot doy) avoréts Tov oroma- 
TOS MOV. 

3'Comp: Hzek. ili. 27; xxix! 31) xxxiie 22 
Jee bealis 

4“ Ut ab hac custodia militari liber per 
omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem 
evang.,” ‘‘That free from this military 
guard, Imay carry the tidings of the gos- 
pel throughout the entire city,” ete. 

5 Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. IT. in 2 Cor. p.99 £. 

® In the Stud. u. Arit. 1854, p. 317. 

TDeme 265 1515127, 9s b08, olGis 1220 e0r 
comp. Aoyou tuxetv, 229, 13. 


a2 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


opportunity to speak may be given to me, namely, at the opening of my 
mouth (that is, when I wish to speak) frankly to proclaim,” ete. But even 
in this way év avoiger Tov or6u. pov. Would be only a needless and cumbrous 
addition. — év rappyoia yvopica: k.t.A.| with frankness to make known the 
mystery of the gospel, t.e., the mystery (see on i. 9) which forms the contents 
of the gospel. The opportunity of preaching was not taken from the 
apostle in his captivity at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), nor yet afterwards at 
Rome (Acts xxviii. 30 f.). Shouid we attach év zapj. to what precedes,’ 
yvwpicae Would be without a necessary modal definition. 


Remark.—If the Recepta dofein were genuine, the statement of aim, intro- 
duced by iva, would be adduced from the mind of the persons praying, thus in 
the character of the oratio obliqua. See oni. 17. 


Ver. 20. For which (to conduct its cause) I discharge the office of am- 
bassador in a chain. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 20. It is to be explained neither 
as though izép ob rpecBebwv év ddboer eiui, ‘for which discharging the office 
of ambassador, I am in a chain,” ? were written, nor as though irép ob xai 
iv ddtioer rpecBevw, ‘*for which and in a chain, I am discharging the office 
of ambassador,” were the reading ;° nor is ov to be referred, as is wsually 
the case, merely to tov evayyeA, but to 7d pvotHpcov Tov evayy., seeing 
that this was the object of yvopica, and to this yrwpica the mpecBetw 
significantly corresponds. Comp. Col. iv. 3: Zadjoa Td prothpiov Tov 
Xpicrov, 0’ 6 Kai dédenat. — zpecBeiw] whose ambassador he is, was at once 
understood by the reader, namely, Christ’s,; and equally so to whom his 
embassy was addressed, namely, to all peoples, specially the Gentiles 
(Acts ix. 15, xxii. 15; Rom. 1. 14, x1. 13; Gal. 1. “9)>” “ihevopames 
of Michaelis, that Paul designates himself as delegate of Christ to the 
Roman court, would, even if he had written the Epistle in Rome, be im- 
ported, since no reader could find anything else than the apostle denoted by 
mpeoBevw without more precise definition. — év diicec] On év, comp. phrases 
like eic tiv dAvaw éutixtew, Polyb. xxi. 3. 3. Wetstein, we may add, aptly 
observes: ‘‘alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis 
haberi non poterant,” ‘‘in other relations ambassadors sacred and inviolable 
by the law of nations, could not be held in bonds.” To infer, however, 
from the use of the singular * the eustodia militaris, ‘‘ the military custody,” 
in which Paul was at Rome (Acts xxviii. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 16), is too hasty ; 
partly for the general reason that the singular must by no means be urged, 
but may be taken collectively,® and partly for the special reason that we have 
to think of Paul at Caesarea too, and that from the very beginning of his 
captivity there (see on Acts xxiv. 23), as in the custodia militaris, ‘‘ mili- 
tary custody ;” Acts xxiv. 27, xxvi. 29.° The significant bearing of the addi- 


1Vatablus: ‘‘ut detur mihi aperto ore gationem,” “now also I do not cease my 
loqui libere, ut notum faciam,” “that it embassy,”’ ete. 


may be given me to speak freely with open 4 Baumgarten, Paley, Flatt, Steiger. 
mouth, that I may make known,” etc. 5 Bernhardy, p. 58 f. 
2 Zachariae, Riickert, Matthies. ® In the latter passage the plural ta@v dep. 


3 Grotius: ‘“‘nune quoque non desino le- TovTwv is not at variance with this view, as 


CHAP. VI., 21. 


tion év dice: is to make palpable the so much greater need of the rappyaia, 
and so the more fully to justify the longing for the intercessory prayer of 
the readers. — iva év abté rappyo. we dei we Aad.) Parallel to the iva por dob « 

ebayyediov, ver. 19, and indeed not tautological,’ but, by means of ac dei pe 
hadjoa, more precisely defining the thought already expressed. As similar 
parallels by means of a second iva, comp. Rom. vii. 13 ; Gal. ill. 14 ; 1 Cor. 
xii. 20 ; 2 Cor. ix. 8. Harless regards this second iva as subordinate to the 
first. Thus the words would express not the aim on account of which Paul 
summons his readers to prayer, as stated by Harless, but the aim of the dol 
But this would be inappropriate, since dof) Adyoc x.7.A. has 
already the definition of aim appropriate to it, namely, in év rapp. yvup. 
Bengel and Meier make iva dependent on xpeoBeiw év adtoer (in which 
case Meier imports the sense, as if the words were iva kai év ai7q rapp.) ; but 
the clause expressive of the aim: ‘‘in order that I may therein speak as 
boldly as I am bound to speak,”’ does not logically correspond to the zpecBeiw 
év dAvoez, because without any reference to év ddicer. 
written 


Adyocg K.T.A. 


KeT.A. 


Had Paul merely 
: wa rappyoiicopa év ait (without we dei we AaAjoa), by which the 
xappyo. would have become emphatic,’ or : iva 7oAAG wahhov Tappyo. év aiTo, 
the logical relation would be satisfied. — év aito] namely, in the mystery of 
the gospel, i.e., occupied therewith, in the proclamation thereof.* Comp. 
Acts ix. 27. Harless understands év of the source or ground of the rappyoia, 
which has its basis in the message itself [rather : in the mystery of the 
gospel ; see on ixép ov]. But the context represents the yvorjpiov tov evayy. 
as the object of the bold discourse (ver. 19); and the sowrce of the rappyoia is 
in God (see 1 Thess. ii. 2), which is not indeed here expressed, but is implied 
in the fact that it is to be obtained for the apostle by prayer on the part of 
the readers. — dc dei we Aaajoa| to be taken together (comp. Col. iv. 4); and 
after we there is not to be put any comma, by which Aaja: would be con- 
nected with zappyc.,s—a course, which is impossible just because cappyc. 
already expresses the bold speaking ; and thus AaAjoa, if it were to be more 
precisely defining, could not but of necessity have with it a modal definition 
(comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2).° 

Ver. 21. Aé] Serving to make the transition to another subject. — cai ieic | 
ye also, not merely the Colossians, Col. iv. 8, 9.° While most of the older 
expositors pass over this «a/ in silence,’ Riickert and Matthies strangely 
enough think that it stands in contradistinetion to the apostle himself. From 
this there would in fact result the absurd thought : ‘‘in order that not only 
I, but also ye may know how it fares with me.” — ra kav’ éué] my circum- 
stances, my position, Phil. i. 22 ; Col. iv. 7.°— ti mpacow| more precise defini- 
tion of ra Kar’ éué : what I experience. i.e., how it fares with me, how I find my- 





itis rather the categoric plural, and leaves 3 Matthiae, p. 1342. 


the question entirely undecided, whether 
Paul was bound with one or more chains. 

1 In opposition to Harless. 

2 This seems also to have been felt by 
Bengel, who connected ws ée¢ we Aad. with 
yvepioar, Which certainly could not occur 
to any reader. 


4 Koppe. 

5 See Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 100 f. 

6 See Introd. § 2. 

7 Rightly, however, explained in a gener- 
al sense by Bengel: ‘‘perinde ut alii,” 
““just as others.” 

8 See Kiihner, II. p. 119. 


bod THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

self! So often also in classical writers, “ de statu et rebus, in quibus quis 
constitutus est et versatur,” ‘‘of the condition and affairs wherein any one 
is placed and is occupied,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. 629. — Tiyixoc] See Acts 
xx.4; Col. iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 12. Beyond these passages unknown, — 6 
ayaryric adehod¢ Kai maT. ded. év Kup.] SO Paul characterizes Tychicus by way 
of commendation,* and that (a) as his beloved fellow-Christian, and (}) as his 
faithful official servant. As the latter, he was employed by Paul for just 
such journeys as the present. Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 12. Mark likewise, accord- 
ing to 2 Tim. iv. 11, receives from the apostle the testimony that he is for 
him eiypyoroc ete diaxoviav. Others, like Grotius (comp. Calvin), do uot re- 
fer didxovoc to the relation to the apostle, but explain it : servant of the gospel 
[minister evangelii], while Estius and many understand specially the ecclesi- 
astical office of the deacon. But Col. iv. 7, where dsaxovog Kai otvdovdog are 
united (the latter word softening the relation of service towards the apostle 
expressed by d:dxovoc), speaks in favor of our view. — év xupiv] belongs only 
to didxovoc, not to dadeAgd¢ as well (in opposition to Meier and Harless), since 
only the former had need of a specific definition (comp. on Phil. i. 14), in 
order to be brought out in its true relation (and not to bear the semblance 
of harshness). Not beyond the pale of Christian relations was Tychicus ser- 
vant of the apostle, but in Christ his service was carried on, Christ was the 
sphere of the same, inasmuch as Tychicus was official diaxovog of the apostle. 
év kupiw is attached without an article, because combined with dcaéxovog so as 
to form one idea. 

Ver. 22. "Exeuwa mpoc tuac] namely, that he should travel from Colossae 
to you, Col. iv. 7-9.4—eic¢ airé tovro]| in this very design.’ — iva yvere Ta repi 
jjuov] must on account of cic av7d rovTo necessarily convey the same thing as 
was said by iva eid7te Ta Kar’ éué, Ti Tpacow, Ver. 21 ; hence the conjecture of 
Riickert, iva yr@ te ta epi duov, is entirely baseless ; and at Col. iv. 8 also 
we have, in accordance with preponderant evidence, to read iva yvare Ta repi 
jjuav. — By juov Paul means himself and those that are with him (see Col. iv. 
10 ff. ; Philem. 10 f., 23 {f.), concerning whom information was likewise 
reserved for the report of Tychicus. — rapaxaréon] might comfort. For Ty- 
chicus had to tell of sufferings and afflictions which Paul must needs endure 
(comp. ver. 20), and on account of them the readers were called 7 éxxaxeiv, 
iii. 13. Amplifications of the notion ° are arbitrary. 

Ver. 23 f. Twofold wish of blessing at the close, in which, however, Paul 
does not, as in the closing formulae of the other Epistles, directly address 


1 Others, like Wolf: what I am doing. 
But ‘hai the reader knew. He was doing 
the one thing, which always occupied him. 
See vv. 19, 20. 

* Comp. Ael. V. 7. ii. 35, where the sick 
Gorgias is asked ti wpatror. Plato, Theaet. 
p. 174 B; Soph. Qed. R. 74; and see Wet- 
stein and Kypke. 

°The assumption of a more special de- 
sign as regards motos, namely, that it is 
meant to represent Tychicusasa trustworthy 
reporter (Grotius), is inadmissible, because 


Tychicus without doubt was known to the 
readers (Acts xx. 4), It was otherwise in 
relation to the Colossians. See on Col. 
iv. 7. 

4 See Introd. § 2. 

5 See on ver. 18, and Bornemann, @d Xen. 
Mem. iii. 12.2; Pflugk, a@ Hur. Androm., 41. 

6 Riickert: ‘to elevate by address to 
them of every kind ;’ Baumgarten-Crusius : 
to strengthen ; comp. Estius, who proposes 
exhortetur, ‘* to exhort.” 


CHAP. VI., 23. 555 
This vari- 
ation is to be regarded as merely accidental, and the more so, seeing that he 
has in fact been just addressing his readers directly, and seeing that a we’ 
duav or the like would simply address the readers, as has so often been done 
in the Epistle itself, leaving, we may add, the question, who these readers 
are, in itself wholly undetermined. For what is asserted by Grotius on ver. 
24: ‘* Non Ephesios tantum salutat, sed et omnes in Asia Christianos,” ‘* He 
saiutes not only the Ephesians, but also all Christians in Asia,” is not implied 
in toi¢ adeAgoic—which, on the contrary, represents quite the simple iuiv, in- 
asmuch as Paul conceives of the recipients of the Epistle in the third person. 
According to Wieseler, p. 444 f., the apostle in ver. 23 salutes the Jewish 
Christians (adeA¢.), and in ver. 24 the Gentile Christians (7davtwv) in Ephesus. 
Improbable in itself, more particularly in this Epistle, which so carefully 
brings into prominence the unity of the two ; and the alleged distinguish- 
ing reference would neither be recognizable, nor in keeping with the apos- 
tolic wisdom. — eipijrvy] not concordia, ‘* harmony,” as recommended by Cal- 


the readers (ue? tuav, werd TavTwv budv, peTa TOV TvebuaToc iuov). 


vin,' but, as Calvin himself explains : welfare, blessing, DI Iwi, without more 
precise definition, because it takes the place of the valete (éppwofe, Acts xv. 
29) at the close of our Epistle,? and because that special sense is not at all 
suggested from the contents of the Epistle (comp. on the other hand, 2 Cor. 
xiii. 11). — ayary wera riorewc| is one object of the wish for blessing, not 
two. After the general fare well! namely, Paul singles out further the 
highest moral element, which he wishes for his readers. He does not, how- 
ever, write cai ayarn Kai riot1c, because with good reason he presupposes faith 
(in the atonement achieved by Christ) as already present, but has doubtless 
to wish for them that which, as the constant life of faith, is to be combined 
with it (1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. v. 6), Christian brotherly love, consequently dove 
with faith (@yad77 has the emphasis, not pera rior.).2  Bengel and Meicr 
understand the divine love, to which, however, pera wior. is unsuitable, 
although Meier explains it : in conformity with their own faith, partly at vari- 
ance with linguistic usage,* partly importing a thought (their own). The 
reading éi4eo¢ (instead of ayary) is to be regarded simply as a glossematic 
consequence of the explaining it of the divine love, and yet, though found 
only in codex A, it is held by Riickert to be the true one (comp. Gal. vi. 
16) ; Paul, he says, wishes to the readers eipfvy x. éAeoe for the reward (2) of 
faith. —a7d Ocov ratpoc x. Kup. I. X.] See on Rom. i. 7. Grotius, we may 
add, rightly observes : ‘‘conjungit causam principem cum causa secunda,” 


1“ Quia mox fit dilectionis mentio,”’ ‘‘ be- 
cause afterwards there is mention of love ;” 
comp. also Theodore and Oecumenius. 

2 Hence also not to be explained of the, 
peace of veconeciliation (Bengel, Matthies, 
Schenkel, and others), any more here than 
in the opening salutations of the Epistle, 
where it takes the place of the epistolary 
salutem, eb mpatrevy, 

3 Comp. Plato, Phaed. p. 253 E: «addos 
meTa Vytelas AawBavery, 


4 weva may, it is true, sometimes be ap- 
proximately as to sense rendered by con- 


Jormably to, but the analysis in those cases 


issuch as does not suit our passage. See 
e.g. Dem. Lept. p. 490; Plato, Phaed. p. 66 
B, where peta tov vopwy and peta Tov Adyou 
is to be explained, in connection with the 
laws, ete., i.¢., with the aid of the same. 
Comp. also Thucyd. iii. 82. 5, and Kriger in 
loc. See in general, Bernhardy, p. 255. 


556 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 

‘(He joins the first with the second cause.”? For Christ is exalted on the 
part of God to the government of the world, and particularly to the Lord- 
ship of the church (i. 22 ; Phil. ii. 9) ; and His dominion has in God, the 
Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), not merely its ground (comp. also Eph. 417), 
but also its goal (1 Cor. ili. 23, xv. 28). 

Ver. 24. While Paul has in ver. 23 expressed his wish of blessing for the 
readers (roic adeAgoic), he now annexes thereto a further such general wish, 
namely, for all who love Christ imperishably, just as at 1 Cor, xvi. 22 he takes 
up into the closing wish an avdGeva upon all those who do not love Christ. 
—1 yapic] the grace kar’ éox4v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” 7.e., the grace of God 
in Christ. (Comp. Col. iy. 18; 1 Tim. vi. 21; 2 Tim: iv. 22:5) Eipoene 
15. In the conclusion of other Epistles: the grace of Christ, Rom. xvi. 
20, 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 235; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Gal. vi. 18 “ERieeeaos 
Thess. v. 28; 2 Thess. iii. 18; Phil. 25. —év ad@apoia] belongs neither 
1 to "Ijcoty Xprordv,2 nor to 7 yapuc,? nor yet to the sé, ‘‘be,” to be 
supplied after 7 yapic, as is held, after Beza (who, however, took év 
for eic) and Bengel, recently by Matthies,‘ Harless,° Bleek, and Ols- 
hausen, which last supposes a breviloquentia, ‘‘an abbreviated expression,” 
But, in opposition to 
Matthies, it may be urged that the purely temporal notion eternity (eic 
rov aiava) is foisted upon the word imperishableness ; and in opposition to 
Harless, that the abstract notion imperishableness is transmuted into the con- 
crete notion of imperishable being, which is not the meaning of agéapc., 
even in 2 Tim. i. 10 (but imperishableness in abstracto, ‘*in the abstract”), 
and that év d@@apoia, instead of adding, in accordance with its emphatic 


for wa Cayv étywow év adfapoia, 1.€., Cwyy aidvior. 


position, a very weighty and important element, would express something 
which is self-evident, namely, that according to the wish of the apostle the 
grace might display itself not év gaproice (1 Pet. i. 18), but év ag#apracg 5 the 
breviloguentia, ‘‘abbreviated expression,” lastly, assumed by Olshausen is, 
although ag@apc. in itself might be equivalent to Cw aidévioc,® a pure inven- 
tion, the sense of which Paul would have expressed by eic¢ a¢@apaiav. The 
right connection is the uswal one, namely, with ayazovrwr. And in ac- 
cordance with this, we have to explain it : who love the Lord in imperishable- 
ness, i.e., so that their love does not pass away, in which case év expresses the 
manner. Comp. the concluding wish Tit. iii. 15, where éy ziore: is in like 
manner to be combined with @Aovvtac. Others, following the same connec- 
tion, have understood the sinceritas, ‘‘ sincerity,” either of the love itself’ 


1 The order inthe combination of the two 
causes is inverted in Gal. l.c.; dca "Incod Xp. 
kal @cov Tatpos. 

2 Wetstein: ‘‘Christum immortalem et 
gloriosum, non humilem,” ‘‘ Christ immortal 
and glorious, not humble,” ete.; see also 

Reiners in Wolf and Semler. 

3 “Favor immortalis,” ‘immortal favor,” 
Castalio, Drusius; comp. Piseator and Mi- 
chaelis, who take év as equivalent to ovr, 
while the latter supposes a reference to 


deniers of the resurrection ! 

4“ That grace with all. . . may be in eter- 
nity ; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius.” 

5 According to whom év denotes the ele- 
ment in which the yapis manifests itself, 
and adtapo. is all imperishable being, 
whether appearing in this life or in eter- 
nity. 

® See Grimm, Handbd. p. 60. 

7 Pelagius, Anselm, Calyin, Calovius, and 
others, 


NOTES. 557 


or of the disposition and the life in general,’ but against this Beza has 
already with reason urged the linguistic usage ; for wneorruptedness is not 
agPapsia (not even in Wisd. vi. 18, 19), but adOopia (Tit. ii. 7) and adiagbopia 
(Wetstein, Il. p. 373). Onag@apoia, imperishableness (at 1 Cor. xv. 42, 
52, it is in accordance with the context specially dncorruptibility), comp. 
Pieper. 6); Rom. ai..7 ;.1-Cor. ix. 25; 1, Tim, i. 17; 2 Tim. 1. 10; 
Wiad.wu0e 23, vi. 18 f. ;.4 Macc. ix. 22, xvii. 12. 


Notes By AMERICAN Eprror. 


LVII. Ver. 1. Ta réxva x.7.A. 


Stier, Braune and Philippi agree here with Hofmann, over against Meyer ; 
but emphasis cannot be thrown on either side. Attention, however, to 
another point, noted by Eadie and Braune, is important, viz., the clear implica- 
tion of the presence of children at the public worship, where this epistle was 
to be read. 


LVIII. Ver. 4. év raWeia kai vovPecia. 


The Revised version translates : ‘‘In the chastening and admonition of the 
Lord.” Trench, following Grotius, and followed by most English writers, 
rejects the distinction advocated by Meyer, and defines the former as ‘‘ train- 
ing by act and discipline,’ and the latter as ‘training by word.” ‘For the 
Greeks, radeia was simply ‘education ;’ nor in all the many definitions of 
maideia, which are to be found in Plato, is there so much as the slightest pro- 
phetic anticipation of the new force which the word should obtain. But the 
deeper apprehension of those who had learned that ‘foolishness is bound in 
the heart’ alike ‘ of a child’ and of a man, while yet the ‘rod of correction 
may drive it far from him’ (Proy. xxii. 15), led them, in assuming the word, to 
bring into it a further thought, they felt and understood that all effectual in- 
struction for the sinful children of men includes and implies chastening, or, as 
we are accustomed to say, out of asense of the same truth ‘ correction.’’’ 
Yet, as Barry suggests, the authority of the father in this, as allowed under the 
Roman law, is here softened by the addition of the xvpiov. In the discipline, 
the fact must be remembered that they belong to Christ, ‘‘ taken into His arms, 
and sealed as His little ones.”’ This intensifies infinitely ‘‘ the greatest reverence 
due a child,’’ of which Juvenal wrote. 

Cremer defines vovfecia by ‘‘ well-intentioned, but serious correction,” and 
adds: ‘This putting right, or correction, just as the Lord uses it, is opposed to 
wrath, Wisd. xvi. 5, 6, xi. 11 ; and the admonition answers to what precedes 
fy wapopyicete K.7.A., for mapopyicerv, to imitate, to provoke to wrath, implies and 
presupposes one’s own anger. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 14. Daweia and vovfecia alike 
have as their end the dv@pwroc réAevoc, Col. i. 28; Eph. iv. 13, but vovfecia is 
intended to obviate deviations, and to establish the right direction of the 
matdeia”’ (Lexicon, p. 442). See Martensen’s Social Ethics, pp. 62 sq. 


1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, abduci, patitur,” “That is indicated which 
Erasmus, Flacius, Estius, Zeger, Grotius: by no force, no enticements, allows itself to 
“significatur is, qui nulla vi, nullis preci- be corrupted, z.e., fo be withdrawn from the 
bus, nullis illecebrisse corrumpi, i.e., a recto right,’ and others, including Wieseler. 


Or 
O51 
o2) 


THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


LIX. Ver. 12. év zoi¢ éxovpaviore. 


Again, as in chap. i. 3, ii, 2 (see Notes III., XVII.), we cannot appreciate the 
argument for a local restriction. The contrast here is between the weakness of 
man and the strength of his great enemies, and the apostle’s idea is fully ex- 
pressed by interpreting this as meaning ‘‘ of a sphere higher than that of earth.” 
The inference from the other constructions that would have been used for this 
is scarcely in point here. ‘The latent opposition aiua kai capé (on earth) and © 
7a Tvevu. (in supernal regions), suggests a word of greater antithetical force, 
which still can include the same lexical meaning. As in chap. ii. 2, there was 
no reason for limiting the term to the mere physical atmosphere, so here still 
less need we adopt any more precise specification of locality’’ (Ellicott). 
Barry adds another element, well worthy of note: It ‘“‘surely points to the 
power of evil as directly spiritual, not acting through physical and human 
agency, but attacking the spirit in that higher aspect, in which it contemplates 
heavenly things and ascends to the communion with God.”’ 


LX. Ver. 13. 77 juépa tH Tovnpda. 


These words are not those of a mere man, mistaken in his inference con- 
cerning an approaching crisis, as Meyer’s interpretation implies, but they are 
inspired of the Holy Ghost, and refer to a contest through which it was un- 
erringly foreseen that the readers of this epistle were to pass. 


LXI. Ver. 14. rij¢ ducacocivye. 


Ellicott concurs with Meyer, defining the thought better, viz., ‘ the right- 
eousness which is the result of the renovation of the heart by the Holy Spirit.” 
But is there actually a tautology involved by interpreting it as referring to the 
righteousness of Christ? Faith and its righteousness, however closely united, 
are nevertheless different things, and thus understood, there is no anticipa- 
tion. Besides, without tautology, Paul elsewhere speaks of faith as both the 
means and the fruit of justification. Braune makes ‘the righteousness” refer 
to both that of faith and of life. We prefer, with Eadie, following Harless, to 
understand it of ‘‘ justification by the blood of the cross.” ‘‘To every insinu- 
ation that they are so vile, guilty, worthless and perverse—so beset with sin 
and under such wrath that God will repulse them, they oppose the free and 
perfect righteousness of their Redeemer, which is ‘upon them,’ Rom. iii. 22. 
So that the dart thrown at them only rings against such a cuirass, and falls 
blunted to the earth.” 


LXII. Ver. 18. év rvedyarte. 


Schmidt inserts in revised Meyer, Hofmann’s explanation, that the expres- 
sion refers to prayer as such as should be a constant occupation of the spiritual 
life, and is never a mere outward activity, such as in chap. v. 18, to which 
the semblance of prayer by the natural man must be limited. év rvevuate is un- 
derstood then as referring to the Holy Spirit in His relation to the human 
spirit. 


TOPICAL. INDEX. 


A. 


Adoption, 315. 

Age, Present, The, 358. 

Ajasaluk, 287. ; 

Angels, The, and redemption, 326 
seq., 353 ; classes of, 343 seq.; rec- 
ognizing God’s wisdom, 414 seq. 

Anger, Warned against, 478 seq.; 
righteous, 487. 

Application in the Christian calling, 
503 seq. 

Armor, The Christian’s, 542 seq., 547. 

Artemis, 287. 

Ascension of Christ, The, 449, 485. 

Atonement, The, of Christ, 314, 351 
seq., 317, 352, 368, 490 seq.; conse- 
quence of, 357, 384 seq., 387 seq., 
389 seq. 


B. 


Baptism, 440 ; its cleansing infiuence, 
513 seq. 

Basil on Ephesians, 288 seq. 

Believers, Christian, alive in Christ, 
369 ; saved by grace, 370; exalted 
with Christ, 3871; in God’s king- 
dom, 392 seq.; as the dwelling of 
the Holy Spirit, 397 seq.; grounded 
in love, 424 seq.; knowing Christ’s 
love, 425 seq., 432 seq.; filled with 
God, 427 seq.; receiving the gifts of 
grace, 443 ; progressing in faith and 
knowledge, 456 seq.; their goal, 459 ; 
their head in Christ, 463 ; exhorted to 
a pure walk, 467 seq.; warned against 
heathen vices, 469 seq., 491 seq.; 
admonished to spiritual regenera- 
tion, 475 seq.; exhorted to moral 
life and conduct, 477 seq.; exhorted 
to love, 490 seq.; as children of 
light, 495 ; to redeem the time, 503 
seq.; warned against debauchery, 
505; exhorted to social worship, 
506 seq.; to be sanctified, 512 seq.; 
members of Christ’s body, 518 seq.; 
admonished to be strong in the 
Lord, 535 seq.; to put on God’s ar- 
mor, 536 seq.; to pray always, 548 








seq., 558 ; receive Paul’s benedic- 
tion, 554 seq. 
Benediction bestowed, 554 seq. 
Bitterness reproved, 483. 


| Butfoonery condemned, 492, 524. 


C. 


Children, their obedience to parents, 
529 seq.; their baptism, 529 ; their 
presence at public worship, 557 ; 
their training, 5382, 557. 

Church, The, as Christ’s body, 345 
seq., 464 seq.; as united in Christ, 
396 seq., 465 seq.; its holiness, 
397 seq.; aS one community, 416, 
431; its progressive development, 
466 seq.; subject to Christ, 509 seq. ; 
sanctified by Christ, 512 seq.; to be 
glorified, 514 seq. 

Christ, His blessings, 312 ; His adop- 
tion, 315; His grace, 317; His re- 
demption, 317 seq., 352, 490 seq.; 
union with Christ, 320; sent by 
God, 321, 352; His resurrection, 
341 seq., 369 seq.; His glorified 
body, 342 seq., 353 seq.; His exal- 
tation and dominion, 342 seq., 371, 
452; filling the church, 346 seq.; His 
divinity, 351 seq.; as our peace, 382 
seq.; His atonement, 384 seq.; and 
the law, 385 seq.; reconciling man 
to God, 387 seq.; preaching peace, 
390 seq.; as the corner-stone, 394 
seq.; the ground of salvation, 417 ; 
dwelling in the believers, 423 seq.; 
His love, 425 ; overcoming His ene- 
mies, 448 : His ascension and de- 
cension, 449 seq.; the head of be- 
lievers, 463 ; calling the believers, 
502 seq.: the aim of His death, 512 
seq.; His love to the church, 516. 


| Circumcision, 377. 


Colossians, Epistle to the, 301 seq. 

Commandment with promise, The, 
530 seq. 

Communicatio idiomatum, The doc- 
trine of the, 354. 

Confidence, Spiritual, 417, 


560 


Conflict, The Christian’s, 537 seq. 

Conversion, its order, 331; man’s 
part in, 425 seq., 422 seq.; its ne- 
cessity, 475 seq. 

Covenants of promise, 379. 

Covetousness, 470; excludes from the 
kingdom, 493. 


D. 


Debauchery condemned, 505. 

Demons, The, and their habitation, 
359 seq., 399; their power, 538 
seq., 507 seq. 

Depravity, Natural, 367 seq. 

Descent into Hades of Christ, 450, 
485. 

Devil, The, 450, 538 seq. 

Devils, The, and their restoration, 
326 ; their food and dwelling-place, 
361, 399 ; their influence and power, 
538 seq., 557 seq. 

Discourse, Evil, reproved, 481 seq. 

Doxology, A, 429 seq. 


K. 


Edification in speech, 482. 

Hiection, Divine, 313 seq., 351 seq. 

Encouragement, Spiritual, 418 seq., 
422 seq. 

Endowments, Spiritual, 418 seq., 422. 

Enlightenment, Christian, 337 seq. 

Enmity between Jew and Gentile, 
383 seq. 

Ephesians, Epistle to the, 287 seq. ; 
its address, 287 seq. ; place 
of composition, 299 seq. ; time 
of composition, 300 seq. ; its gen- 
nineness, 302 seq. ; its dependence 
on Colossians, 303 seq. ; its occa- 
sion, object, and contents, 307 seq. 

Ephesus, 287. 


FP. 


Faith and salvation, 372 seq. ; as in- 
strumental cause, 417; its unity, 
440 ; its aim, 456 seq.; saving, 545. 

Fathers, their duty to children, 532 
seq. 

Forbearance, 437 seq. 

Foreknowledge of God, 313 seq., 351 
seq. 

Forgiveness of sins, 318, 352; mu- 
tual, 483. 


G: 


Gentile gods, 380. 

Gentiles, The, in God’s kingdom, 392, 
410 seq. ; blessed, 406 seq. ; their 
irreligious condition, 468 seq.; their 
ignorance, 469, 486; their lasciv- 
iousness, 470 seq., 496 seq. 


TOPICAL 





INDEX. 


Glory of Messianic salvation, The, 
340, 379 ; of God, 422 seq. 

Gnosticism, 350. 

Good Works and salvation, 373 seq. ; 
and justification, 376, 400. 

Gospel, The, and salvation, 330 seq. 

God, the Father, 311 seq., 350 seq.; 
His foreknowledge and election, 313 
seq., 351 seq., 416 seq.; His judg- 
ment, 314; His love, 314 seq., 368 
seq.; His administration, 321 seq., 
352 seq.; awakens to spiritual life, 
356 seq.; his wrath, 364 seq.; as the 
Creator, 413 seq.; as the universal 
Father, 419 seq., 431 seq.; His glory, 
422 seq.; praise to, 429 seq.; unity 
of, 442 seq.; renews man, 475 seq.; 
His call to the sleepers, 500. 

Grace, its glory, 317; its saving 
power, 328 seq., 369, 372 seq. 


Be 


Holiness, 314, 351 seq. 

Hope, Christian, 340 seq. - 

Holy Spirit, The, received. 331, 353 ; 
His working, 337; dwelling in the 
believers, 397 seq.; strengthening 
the inner man, 423; unity in, 439 
seq.; renewing man, 475 seq. ; griev- 
ed, 482 seq.; the fruits of, 495 seq.; 
the sword of, 547. 

Humility, 412. 

Husband and wife, 508 seq.; love of 
the former, 516 seq.; ground of 
their union, 519 seq. 


ile 


Immorality, 358. 
Infant Baptism, 366. seq. 
Instability, Religious, 460 seq. 


J. 


Jerome on Ephesians, 289. 
Justification and good works, 376, 
400. 


KE 


Kingdom, Messianic, The, 327 seq. 
Knowledge, Christian, 338 seq., 353 ; 
of Christ, 457 seq. 


L. 


Labor commended, 481. 

Law, The, and Christ, 385 seq. 

Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 294 seq. 

Lord’s Supper, The, 440; an act of 
preserved unity, 484; reference to, 
515, 519, 526. 

Love, Divine, 314 seq., 368 seq.; man 
exhorted to, 490 seq. 


TOPICAL 


M. 
Malice condemned, 483. 
Man, The Inner, 428. 
Marcion on Ephesians, 289 seq. 
Marriage state, 519 seq. 
Masters, their duty to servants, 534 


seq. 
Mercy of God, The, 368 seq. 
Messianic predictions realized, 445 


seq. 
Metic, Greek, The, 392, 401. 
Monogamy, 523. 
Mystery, The Divine, 413; a great, 
522. 
O. 


Onesimus, 300. 
Original Sin, 365 seq., 399 seq. 


Ie 


Parousia, The, 324, 371 seq., 4380; 
and the believer's goal, 459; the 
ehurch of Christ in, 515. 

Paul as a prisoner, 299 seq. ; for the 
Gentiles’ sake, 405 seq. ; as receiv- 
ing revelations, 406 ; receiving spir- 
itual gifts, 411 seq. ; supplicates 
the Father, 419 seq. ; desires the 
believer’s prayers, 549 seq.; his 
preaching powers, 551 seq. ; as am- 
bassador of Christ, 552 seq. ; sends 
Tychicus, 554; imparts his bless- 
ing, 554 seq. 

Peace of the Gospel, The, 543 seq. 

Philemon, 301. 

Praise to God, 311 seq., 334 seq. 

Prayer, Intercessory, 335 seq., 549 ; as 
a Christian habit, 548 seq., 558; 
the object of, 550 seq. 


Predestination, 313 seq., 351 seq.; | 


through love, 314 seq., 316, 352; 
its final cause, 328 seq. 

Promises of God, 331 seq. 

Prophecy fulfilled, 443 seq. 

Psalm quoted, 443 seq. 


R. 


Recompense, Spiritual, 534. 

Redemption in Christ, 317 seq., 352, 
333 ; the eternal plan of, 414. 

Regeneration, 475 seq. 

Restoration, 325 seq. 

Restitution, 324 seq. . 

Resurrection of Christ, The, 341 seq., 
369 seq. 

Righteousness, Forensic, 314, 352 seq. ; 
as moral rectitude, 543, 558. 





INDEX. 56L 


¢ 


S. 


Salutation, Apostolic, 310 ; the glory 
of, 340. 

Salvation of God, 328 seq.; by grace, 
369, 372 seq.; of the Messianic 
kingdom, 546 seq. 

Sanctification the aim of Christ’s sae- 
rifice, 512, 525. 

Servants, their duty, 532 seq. 

Sealing with the Spirit, 331, 353. 

Sin, Dead unto, 357; original, 365 
seq., 399 seq. ; to be exposed, 498. 

Stealing forbidden, 480. 

Subjection of all things to Christ, 344 
seq. 


T. 
Tertullian on Ephesians, 289 seq. 


Thanksgiving commended, 507 seq. 
Theocracy, The, 444. 


| Trinity, The, 442. 


Truth in love, 462; in Christ, 472 
seq. 

Truthfulness commended, 477 seq. 

Tychicus, 300. 


We 


Ubiquity of Christ’s body, 346 seq., 
353 seq. 

Unchastity, warned against, 491 ; ex- 
cludes from the kingdom, 493 ; of 
the heathen, 496 seq. 

Union in Christ, 320. 

Unity in the Spirit, 438 seq.; of the 
faith, 440; its aim, 456 seq. 


We 


Wall of partition, 382 seq. 

Wife and husband, 508 seq. ; ground 
of their union, 519 seq.; their mu- 
tual love and reverence, 523. 

Wine, its excessive use condemned, 
505. 

Wisdom, Divine, 319 ; recognized, 414 
seq.; known through the church, 
416. 

Word of God, The, 547. 

Works and salvation, 373 seq. ; and 
justification, 376, 400. 

Worship, Social, 506 seq. 

Wrath of God, The, 364 seq.; visited 
upon immorality, 494. 

















Date Due 





ES 





4 1012 00012 6856 





